HEEE! That is awesome.

Moron. I was saying that I thought her joke about lawyers was hilarious, not the case.

I think that the last bit of the article could be better written. I don't think the article meant to say that Blue Ivy is actually unkempt.

I only see Mr. Carter.

Fuck that judge.

You should see my (white, blond) daughter's hair. It is fine and wavy and constantly has jam/cookies/bits of meat stuck in it. This is true even if I have given her a bath like, 2 minutes previously. The garbage gravitates to her head. She is also a seriously naturally messy, dirty kid. Her face, hands and clothing…

I guess I'm upset that Obama made that promise in the first place knowing the exec branch's limitations.

I have been disappointed by the Obama administration many times over. Why is Guantanamo still open, for instance? But this — this makes my vote worth it. I have been consistently pretty happy (albeit not totally happy) with the executive branch and the DOJ on issues surrounding marriage equality. Well done, DOJ.

Or, you know, feminists of any color who like handsome feminist men of any color who also happen to be good fathers. There's that contingent too.

Excellent job not reading but commenting anyway! You have met the Gawker standard!

Agree. At least this guy didn't do what Gawker media commenters usually do, which is 1) don't read the article 2) still comment on it and 3) post an eyerolling/shrugging/NO gif even though they're not actually sure what the article says.

I laughed too. It looks like a doll brush. Total adorable daddy move.

I know. I completely understand this guy's point and deplore that he has to make it, but every time I start to really think about those issues, I'm distracted by the baby's huge and adorable cheeks.

Actually, this isn't true. Most of the time stuff that's deleted off a device isn't truly deleted, that's true. Instead, it's marked by the device as "deletable", i.e., not needed, and can be overwritten if space is required. That's why it's important to try to recover deleted files as soon as possible, before they…

It happens.

I don't think SaltoHawkeye thinks that this is about statutory rape. S(he) was responding to a comment above from another commenter who DOES wish that this fell into the category of statutory rape.

Exactly. Those laws are generally a good thing and protect conduct that most people agree doesn't endanger society to the point that it should be criminalized. Is it a good idea for 14 year olds to sleep with 17 year olds? Probably not. But I don't want that behavior criminalized. I don't think most people do.

I would just say, if it makes you feel any better: at least this time we're hearing about it. At least it's a national news story, as painful as that might be for Daisy Coleman. At least the Washington Post thinks it's important to report on. At least it's fucking NEWS. We're outraged, but it's because in the past…

Because MO has "Romeo and Juliet" laws wherein, generally, people between the ages of 14 and 21 can have sex with each other without getting charged with statutory rape. They're generally a good thing — means 15 year old Juliet's family can't decide to press charges against 17 year old Romeo for having sex with her.…

I am a criminal defense lawyer and I have gotten shit on this website before for explaining, .e.g, why the prosecutor in the Jameis Winston case decided not to go forward with charges (hint: because the case was miserable.) But having read through the Kansas City Star's excellent recitation of the facts, I cannot…