Ha! Thanks. I like to bring her into a conversation whenever I can.

Oh God, I'm so sorry.

That's not creepier, it's just sort of impersonal. Sort of like when Sean Young showed up at Tim Burton's office dressed as Catwoman and slithered around everywhere, it was more personal than having her agent set up a meeting, but also creepier. Match profiles don't typically make random women on the street feel…

THIS picture seems disconnected. I mean, it doesn't even look like they posed together and took 5 photos and composited the best of each into a single image. It looks like some of those kids were in completely different places.

It does matter. Context matters. The blanket rule "never talk about candidates' offspring" doesn't make sense in every context (for example, when DeBlasio's kids were in his campaign ads, it was of course acceptable to talk about the ads). If Romney wants to protect his grandchildrens' images and privacy, I think…

She's talking about a photo that Romney tweeted. She didn't steal his camera and upload his private photos in secret.

Whoa whoa whoa. Look at the granddaughter in the right of the frame, holding the baby—are some of these kids photoshopped in?? Or are they just posing in front of a fake backdrop? Forget about the kid on his knee; this photo looks WEIRD.

No, creepy for sure. Now, it might not be malignantly creepy. He might just be super-awkward and an essentially sweet person. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt there. But the thing he's doing is really creepy.

He was sort of famously a dick for a very, very long time, but apparently has mellowed and become kinder in the last decade or so.

Half of these men aren't even 50 yet!

Yes...not to diminish the awesomeness of that character, but the Jack McCoy-lovers are johnny-come-latelies as far as Sam Waterston is concerned!

I may be misremembering timelines, but wasn't what happened that he left his wife for Edie Falco and then went back to her (his late wife) when she got sick? Though that's still pretty messy...

Awesome journalistic ethics, Vanity Fair! First rate!

But the forbidden thing makes it BETTER.

You *do* need to report the card stolen as soon as possible (or as I said above, "promptly"), and your liability increases the longer it takes for you to report, but it's not true that the bank has "no legal obligation" to repay if you do report, or that the only applicable protection is through FDIC. Chase would be…

This is also not accurate. Customers are only liable for up to $50 of charges racked up under debit card theft (provided they report promptly—consumer liability goes up the longer you take to report): http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0213-…

Chase is not protecting their clients, in this case. Chase is protecting themselves, from being on the hook for more than they want to be when these cards are inevitably misused by the hackers. Gratitude to Chase in this case is an inappropriate response.

Oh, dear. Please don't double down on your already bananas argument. You do realize that, even if we were living in a strange world where people were only allowed to withdraw 1/365th of their annual salary at a time, people are still allowed to go to ATMs on days that they don't go to the office?

Hahahahaha!!! Yes, I dare you to try that. Have great fun with that one. Retailers who offer cash back cap that perk, generally at around $80 or $100. But by all means, go on up there and try requesting $290.

Funnily enough, you're even wrong in your math—$50K divided by 365 is actually less than $189. Which would I suppose strengthen your argument, if your argument made any sense to begin with. You're acting as if people were advocating for withdrawing the same amount of cash every day, rather than being able to do so on…