Cats are stupid
Talking cats are stupid
Videos of talking cats are stupid.

Cats rule.
People who hate cats are insecure.
People who post these opinions online are worthless.

SCOTUS says no to Prop 8 folks: http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/new-ma…

why do we breed out snouts? pugs and... whatever warped breed that "talking cat" is. do we have snout envy? does that explain all the werewolf twilight stuff? it typically results in structural disadvantages to the poor snout-less critters.

mean-while... i really hope The Stranger investigates properly the connection between the Marysville shooter, his very large stockpile of guns, and why all the other local media will fail to underscore that issue (hey, it's a valid opportunity to attack The Times)

RE: "Shame on Bank of America,"

The judge WAS going to let the man go,

The judge cited a case from 1995 where the defendant was acquitted of vandalism because the jury decided that children's chalk left no lasting damage to the sidewalk.

However...

the city elected to charge Olson after a high-ranking bank security manager called repeatedly to voice a complaint.

Uhhhh, it the city prosecutor who is the asshole for taking the case in front of a judge to begin with... Lack of the prosecutor's discretion is certainly responsible for this use of brute judicial force....

Female mutilator gets justice...

California ex-wife sentenced for cutting off husband's penis

Kieu laced her husband's dinner with the sleep medication Ambien after they had an argument over a friend possibly staying with them at a later date, the Orange County district attorney's office said in a statement Friday.

When the husband went to sleep, Kieu tied his legs and arms to the four corners of the bed, and when he awoke, she pulled down his pants and severed his penis with a knife, prosecutors charged.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/28/justice/ca…

The man with the chalk would be a political prisoner and don't think that won't get internet play by all kinds of people. Wrong move.

@8

Interesting story, would enjoy the sassy report done by girl power Cienna. I mean that as a compliment, Ms Madrid. If it was an insult I would have suggested yawn blab Lindy West.

I have a baseball cap from a cap day that was sponsored by Bank of America, so their logo is on the back. I should write "Shame on" above their logo.

Public School Teacher Watch

NYC police: Teacher accused of raping 10-year-old student

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/19/us/new-yor…

"I never thought it was vandalism" -- really? Even if it "washes off" it's still defacing private property. 13 years is too long, but 13 days would be just right.

@12, it's not private property, it's public property, and they're not defaced, just temporarily chalked. But yeah, I totally see your point, this man is a wanton terrist, and what about those tween bitches down at the school and their "hopscotch", huh? Waterboard those hussies until they tell us who buckled the motherfuckin' shoe, AMIRITE?

You're a fascist. You know that.

Women Drug and Rob Men in S. Florida

Beware bar-hopping temptresses who drug then rob men

Flirty women are meeting men at upscale bars, scamming invitations back to the men's homes, then making off with Rolex watches, iPhones, cameras, handguns and credit cards.

South Florida police reports from the past five months show that of 13 men who were robbed by the women they took home, eight believe they were drugged.

...

"They were very evil," Kesto said. "Stealing from people is one thing, but drugging people … you could die from it."

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2013-05…

More abuse.
More mutilation.

Trio Of Women Threw Bleach, Robbed Man On City Bus

MBTA Police are searching for three young women who they say threw bleach in the eyes of a bus passenger after robbing him of his money.

The victim was returning home from work early Sunday morning, riding the #28 bus on Blue Hill Avenue through Roxbury, when it seems the trio sized him up.

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/06/12/mb…

@13: My bad on private, but it's still defacing - even if it's temporary. If these were "baby killer" epitaths in front of an abortion clinic I'm sure you would think some form of punishment would be appropriate (as would I). The content of the message is also key, theses are not hopscotch patterns. "Shame on Bank of America" is not composed of squares and numbers like a hopscotch pattern but is rather a self-documenting pronouncement of provocation and or maliciousness.

Am I overreacting? It's not a stretch to think that this breeds more, and more destructive, vandalism. Well, consider the next anarchist/occupy protester/anti-abortionist would be inclined to embellish the situation and hurl a big rock through the window.

@2 I'm secure with my worthlesness.

And J-Lo kept the money. Good on her. I don't see why pop stars should have a higher level of morality than anyone else. People work for At&T, for instance.

TAX US LIKE TEXAS!

Yee haw!!

It seems to me that writing "Shame on Bank of America" in chalk on the sidewalk should be protected speech. The sidewalk does not belong to Bank of America. (Although a handful of elected officials probably do.) That would be like throwing someone in jail for holding a sign saying "Shame on Bank of America". If protesting a bank is a crime, then so is picketing a fast food joint or an abortion clinic. It's truly outrageous that someone could get thrown in jail for this. Outrageous.

On a related note, I hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate Bank of America. They treat their patrons abominably. This isn't the first time they've ticked me off. Whenever I read a headline about a bank behaving like a bunch of gangsters, I think to myself, "Must be Bank of America." And guess what - I'm invariably right. They suck like the biggest black hole in the Milky Way. I'd rather stuff my money under my mattress and have a house fire than give it to those extortionist thieves. Screw them. I hope they go the way of Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns.

Shame on Bank of America.

@26: The same sentiment is vented at Wells Fargo and Chase. In general, all we hear is venting against big banks and big corporations, yet we all use them on daily basis and take advantage of their service offerings.

@27 lol, really that's your defence of bankers? Ok lets run with that logic.

The same sentiment is vented about auto mechanics. In general, all we hear is venting against auto mechanics, yet we all use them on a daily basis and take advantage of their service offerings.

So what if they cut our break lines while telling us they are fixing our break callipers. No worries just come back tomorrow and take advantage of their service offerings to fix the body damage.

After all bitching about poor craftsmanship and service is anti-capitalists and thus unAmerican.

Jesus fucking christ, this is not a community news thread. Bailo and Doom, you have your own fetid corners of the internet to spam your links at. Stop fucking up this one.

And that is not a talking cat. Videos of talking cats are often cute, but that was easily the worst minute spent of my day. Callan just dropped way below Ansel and Luby on the intern scale. Ask Megan how to post cute animals next time.

@18: Fudge punchers? And I thought I had heard them all...
@26: Agreed. BOFA is bullshit, globally and locally.

Raindrop @16 lays it out nicely: it's the content, not the deed, that is getting this guy prosecuted. No one disputes that. Raindrop openly admits it. Only question then is, why is his lawyer prohibted from mentioning the First Amendment, in his defence? If a jury of his peers decides that the damage done to the sidewalk by the water-soluble chalk is so severe that it justifies cutailing free speech, then ok. But isn't that we have juries, so that Bank Presidents and Raindrop and other people of dubious social conscience don't get to make the call?

@31
Not being a lawyer the only reason I can think of for the judge to prohibit a constitutional defense would be to make the reversal a given if the person is convicted. No other reason would be required even. It would be the judges way of telling both the prosecutor and the defense that he thinks this is a bullshit prosecution and he thinks that it is both a waste of his time and a wrongful interpretation of the law. If the guy gets off on the charge no harm done. If he gets convicted then in the appeal the courts will overturn and remand back due to him not being able properly defend himself in court. At that point the prosecutor has to decide if he really wants to re-try with a very hostile judge who has basically already told him this is bullshit and to drop the case.