Daily-Dose

Contents

• From New Yorker
• From Vox
• From The Hindu: Sports
• From The Hindu: National News
• From BBC: Europe
• From Ars Technica
• From Jokes Subreddit

From New Yorker

• Afghanistan, Again, Becomes a Cradle for Jihadism—and Al Qaeda - The terrorist group has outlasted the trillion-dollar U.S. investment in Afghanistan since 9/11. - link

• Have You Already Had a Breakthrough COVID Infection? - The question of what “infection” means is just one of the riddles posed by the late-stage pandemic. - link

• Meeting “the Other Side”: Conversations with Men Accused of Sexual Assault - In 2011, I helped launch a movement to aid survivors on college campuses. That meant I also had to think hard about the rights of those under scrutiny. - link

• Why Facebook Is Suddenly Afraid of the F.T.C. - The agency is getting a second chance to convince a federal judge that the social-media giant is a monopoly which needs to be broken up. - link

• Daily Cartoon: Monday, August 23rd - “Go back to work? But what will the dog think?” - link

From Vox

• A new Supreme Court case could blow up decades of US diplomacy -

  

  The Court must decide whether rogue judges have the power to blow up US foreign policy.

  Texas v. Biden, a case with profound implications for American foreign policy, reached the Supreme Court with lightning speed.

  On August 13, a judge in Texas appointed by then-President Donald Trump effectively ordered the Biden administration to permanently reinstate Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy. That policy, which is officially known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), requires many immigrants who seek asylum in the United States to stay in Mexico while they await a hearing.

  Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk’s opinion in Texas was wrong for many reasons, including that he completely misread federal immigration law. Kacsmaryk wrote that a 1996 federal law only gives “the government two options vis-à-vis aliens seeking asylum: (1) mandatory detention; or (2) return to a contiguous territory.” Federal immigration law actually gives immigration officials several options, including granting “parole into the United States” to individual immigrants or releasing the immigrant on “bond of at least $1,500.”

  On Thursday, a panel of three right-wing appellate judges, two of whom were appointed by Trump, refused DOJ’s request to stay Kacsmaryk’s order and prevent it from taking effect. Kacsmaryk intended for his order to take effect on Friday, giving the Biden administration just one week to reinstate a complex policy that requires careful negotiations with foreign governments.

  Late on Friday, Justice Samuel Alito extended that period “until 11:59 p.m. EDT on Tuesday, August 24 so that the full Court can consider” DOJ’s request to suspend Kacsmaryk’s decision.

  The most obvious stakes in this case are whether thousands of migrants will be forced to live in harrowing conditions — without “stable access to housing, income, and safety,” according to Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas — because of an egregious misreading of federal law. But the potential consequences of a Supreme Court decision allowing Kacsmaryk’s order to take effect stretch far beyond these immediate humanitarian concerns.

  Remain in Mexico was implemented in early 2019, and effectively suspended in March 2020, because the government imposed stricter, temporary border restrictions in order to reduce the spread of Covid-19. Thus, Kacsmaryk’s opinion rests on the improbable claim that a federal law enacted in 1996 requires the government to implement a policy that was only in effect for 14 months, and that wasn’t implemented until nearly a quarter-century after the 1996 law took effect.

  As the Justice Department explains in its brief asking the Court to stay Kacsmaryk’s decision, “implementing MPP required extensive coordination with and assistance from Mexico, which took a variety of steps to assist the United States and the migrants who were returned.” Reimplementing it would also require such coordination with Mexican officials, who may not be inclined to be charitable if US negotiators abruptly break their own promise to end the Remain in Mexico policy.

  Historically, and over the course of many decisions handed down for many decades, the Supreme Court has warned against “the danger of unwarranted judicial interference in the conduct of foreign policy.” Foreign relations involve sensitive negotiations, where US diplomats need to know that their country will keep their promises. If a judge can order the United States to make significant changes to its foreign policy, especially when the judge’s order is rooted in a preposterous reading of federal law, that will disrupt our relations with foreign governments and diminish our credibility abroad.

  The question in Texas, in other words, is whether the Supreme Court will abandon the judiciary’s longtime posture of deference to the elected branches on matters of foreign relations — or whether it will give an increasingly right-wing judiciary a permission slip to interfere with America’s negotiations with foreign partners and rivals.

  Immigration policy is foreign policy

  The Supreme Court hasn’t just spent generations warning judges not to get involved with foreign relations; it’s explicitly stated that US immigration policy is an integral part of our foreign policy. Although the Supreme Court was often criticized during the Trump administration, including by some of the Court’s own members, for showing excessive deference to Trump’s immigration policies, the principle that courts should be reluctant to interfere with foreign relations generally — and with immigration policy in particular — long predates Trump.

  “One of the most important and delicate of all international relationships, recognized immemorially as a responsibility of government,” the Court explained in Hines v. Davidowitz (1941), “has to do with the protection of the just rights of a country’s own nationals when those nationals are in another country.” Hines warned that “international controversies of the gravest moment, sometimes even leading to war, may arise from real or imagined wrongs to another’s subjects inflicted, or permitted, by a government.”

  Hines involved a Pennsylvania law that required most foreign nationals in that state to register with Pennsylvania officials and to carry an “alien identification card” that police could demand to see. In striking down this law, the Court explained that if a single state could impose such treatment on foreign nationals, that state could damage America’s national interests abroad. Questions of national importance should be decided by the national government, not by one rogue state.

  The Court reaffirmed these principles in Arizona v. United States (2012), which struck down much of an Arizona law targeting undocumented immigrants. “Immigration policy can affect trade, investment, tourism, and diplomatic relations for the entire Nation,” Justice Anthony Kennedy explained in his majority opinion. He also warned that “perceived mistreatment of aliens in the United States may lead to harmful reciprocal treatment of American citizens abroad.”

  Arizona, like Hines, involved a question of whether individual states can interfere with federal immigration policy, and the Court explained that the answer to this question should typically be “no.” “It is fundamental that foreign countries concerned about the status, safety, and security of their nationals in the United States must be able to confer and communicate on this subject with one national sovereign,” Kennedy wrote for the Court, “not the 50 separate States.”

  The Texas litigation is an attempt to bypass the Supreme Court’s warning that federal officials, and not state governments, get to decide our nation’s immigration policy. The lawsuit was brought by two red states, Texas and Missouri, whose leadership disagrees with Biden’s decision to end the Remain in Mexico policy.

  Rather than passing a state law implementing Remain in Mexico, something that states cannot do under the principles laid out in Hines and Arizona, the two states brought a lawsuit that was heard by an unusually right-wing judge. Before Trump made Kacsmaryk a judge, Kacsmaryk worked at a religious right law firm. He’s previously written that being transgender is a “mental disorder” and that gay people are “disordered.”

  If anything, moreover, the Court’s warning in Arizona and Hines that foreign policy should only be determined by the nation as a whole is even more compelling in the Texas case. Say what you will about the laws at issue in Arizona and Hines, but at least they were enacted by an elected state legislature representing one of the 50 states.

  But no one elected Matthew Kacsmaryk (or any other judge involved in this case). If a federal judge who disagrees with US foreign policy can order it changed, especially if they can do so based on a misreading of federal law, that could toss foreign relations into turmoil.

As I write these words, for example, the United States is involved in delicate negotiations with the Taliban to ensure that US nationals and American allies can safely evacuate from Afghanistan. Despite initial chaos as the Taliban took control of Afghanistan, these negotiations are now bearing fruit. The US military successfully evacuated over 10,000 people from Afghanistan on Sunday alone.

Now imagine that some ideological judge — perhaps one who disagrees with President Joe Biden’s decision to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan — orders the Biden administration to change its diplomatic stance with the Taliban. Even if that decision were reversed by a higher court, that process would likely take days — and those few days of confusion and mixed messages could permanently sour US relations with the Taliban and endanger thousands of lives.

For decades, the Supreme Court warned that such judicial interference with foreign relations is untenable. The question in Texas is whether the current Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, will exercise the same wisdom and forbearance.

Kacsmaryk’s decision is dead wrong

Texas would be a more difficult case if there were some legal basis for Kacsmaryk’s opinion. If Congress actually passed a law requiring Biden to implement Trump’s Remain in Mexico policy, then Biden would be bound by that law — although courts might sensibly give him more than a week to reinstate Trump’s policy given the diplomatic negotiations that must occur before such a policy can be implemented.

Kacsmaryk’s opinion rested on two separate arguments. First, federal agencies typically must offer a “reasoned analysis” explaining why they decided to implement a new policy before that policy can go into effect. Kacsmaryk claims that a memo by Secretary Mayorkas, which explains why the Biden administration ended the Remain in Mexico policy, did not provide an adequately reasoned explanation for why it did so.

There are good reasons to doubt this aspect of Kacsmaryk’s reasoning, and the Justice Department’s brief to the Supreme Court makes a persuasive case that Mayorkas’s memo is adequate. But if the Court agrees with this aspect of Kacsmaryk’s opinion, that’s not necessarily the end of the world.

Provided that the justices explain what, exactly, Mayorkas needs to put into a new memo in order to end Remain in Mexico, Mayorkas can always just issue a new memo. The Court could also temporarily stay a decision requiring Mayorkas to produce a second memo in order to give him enough time to comply with the Court’s order.

The bigger problem with Kacsmaryk’s opinion is his egregious misreading of federal immigration law.

Kacsmaryk claims that when an asylum seeker arrives at the US-Mexico border, federal law only gives the US government two options: “(1) mandatory detention; or (2) return to a contiguous territory.” But that’s just false. The law gives federal immigration officials a menu of options, including granting an asylum seeker parole “for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit,” or releasing the immigrant on bond.

Under a doctrine known as “prosecutorial discretion,” the executive branch also has broad discretion to decide not to bring enforcement actions against individual immigrants.

So if the Supreme Court decides to follow the law, Texas is an easy case. The Biden administration has a strong legal argument, rooted both in statutory text and in longstanding constitutional doctrines. And the foreign policy implications of allowing people like Kacsmaryk to interfere with American immigration policy could be disastrous.

The open question is whether the Supreme Court also has five votes to block Kacsmaryk’s order. Although the Court recognized the close relationship between immigration and foreign policy in its 2012 Arizona decision, Arizona was a 5-3 decision with conservatives Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Kennedy crossing over to vote with the liberal justices (minus Justice Elena Kagan, who was recused in Arizona).

Roberts is still on the Court, but Kennedy is not. And both Kennedy and the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg have since been replaced by conservative Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

To prevail in Texas, in other words, the Biden administration most likely needs to hold on to Roberts’s vote and secure the vote of either Kavanaugh or Barrett.

• One Good Thing: A rom-com that celebrates the joy of easy watching -

  

Netflix’s Someone Great is a forgotten film that just works, all tropes aside.

I watch no fewer than eight romantic comedies a month. The formula — a slightly outlandish meet-cute, some heady “will-they-or- won’t-they” moments, and conflict that never lasts for more than 20 minutes — makes my brain feel smooth, and I consume them as both workday background noise and an anxiety cure. The genre equivalent of The Comfy hoodie, the predictability of rom-coms is both cringeworthy and comforting.

Someone Great, the forgotten child of Netflix’s late 2010s bid to revitalize the romantic comedy, slots into the genre perfectly, despite working overtime to subvert the trope of slapdash romances. Namely, the love story happens in reverse. When music journalist Jenny (Gina Rodriguez) gets her dream job at the mythological San Francisco bureau of Rolling Stone, her boyfriend of nine years, Nate (Lakeith Stanfield), dumps her, leaving Jenny to enlist best friends Blair (Brittany Snow) and Erin (DeWanda Wise) on a quest for closure and concert tickets. Jenny and Nate’s relationship unwinds in neon-tinted flashbacks of passionate sex and arguments about ambition, bifurcating the film into a buddy comedy and a searing exploration of what it looks like to outgrow your partner without meaning to.

The latter plotline is what makes Someone Great the perfect late (or early, depending on who you ask) pandemic watch. If I had to guess, we’re all emerging from these last 17 months a little worse for wear. Co-quarantining killed relationships we thought would last forever, and the routine of work-sleep-repeat has us leaving careers we thought we’d have forever. In other words, life probably still feels shitty and uncertain to most people, and it’s reassuring to watch someone fictional come to terms with that as imperfectly as the rest of us.

The day after her relationship ends, Jenny melodramatically dives into singledom, binge-drinking and self-medicating with Molly (a.k.a. ecstasy) procured from RuPaul as she searches for tickets to a music festival. Jenny is endearing in her mood swings, with Rodriguez coming across light and airy when she shirks off her feelings and arresting while deep in them.

This messiness is what makes Someone Great so appealing. No one is looking for the perfect guy or a second chance or any of those other improbable rom-com asks. All Jenny wants is a few hours to get fucked up and forget about things, and that’s something even a rom-com skeptic can get behind.

Someone Great is really a film about trepidation and how it manifests differently in all of us. For Jenny, it comes out in grand displays of emotion, crying in the corner of a bodega to Selena’s “Dreaming of You.” For Erin, it’s in procrastination and denial as she avoids committing to the boutique owner she’s sleeping with, in a final bid to delay adulthood. As for Blair, she deals with her anxieties through lopsided confrontation by cheating on her doting boyfriend with a lanky creative-director type.

The takeaway from their coping mechanisms? Sudden change doesn’t require a sudden solution, even if it takes the film’s protagonists a mere 24 hours to reach that realization. It’s a refreshing lesson, especially as we’re inundated with tales of hot girl summers and clubbing itineraries and primers on how to combat your fear of going out. We don’t need to be okay with this new, awkward pace of life yet — and yes, I’m painfully aware of the irony of a film that celebrates hedonism teaching me that.

Someone Great is best watched casually, perhaps with a pile of laundry at your feet or while you complete some other mundane house chore. Like Set It Up and the rest of the Netflix rom-com set, it’s compulsively watchable, with a plot that gets better the less you think about it. Jenny, Blair, and Erin’s chemistry is breezy, and the film is at its best when it relies on their friendship for cheap laughs. Case in point: The clothing montage — a staple of early aughts rom-coms — feels like a natural extension of a night out as the trio takes shots and swaps outfits while rapping along to “The Jump Off” by Lil’ Kim.

The film’s soundtrack is both a welcome plot device and a crutch, with the song selections occasionally feeling a little too on the nose, like when Jenny scrolls through nearly a decade’s worth of texts and photos while Lorde’s “Supercut” plays. Writer-director Jennifer Kaytin Robinson started off as a music blogger for Pigeons and Planes, and much of the film’s identity comes from Spotify playlists containing well over 500 songs, with most of the score coming together during production. That symbiosis is best showcased in Someone Great’s final flashback, where Jenny and Nate have sex after a particularly incendiary argument. Mitski’s “Your Best American Girl” plays in the background, like some sort of warning bell as Jenny realizes the best parts of her relationship are over and that their differences aren’t something you can argue through.

Make no mistake: Someone Great isn’t earth-shattering cinema. It’s not even the best rom-com to come out of the past couple of years. But it is a soothing, easy film to return to when pandemic life feels a little too daunting.

Someone Great is streaming on Netflix.

For more recommendations from the world of culture, check out the One Good Thing archives.

• “It’s the freest place I’ve ever been”: How Martha’s Vineyard became a Black summertime sanctuary -

  

  For generations, forces worked to curtail Black freedom and joy. The Vineyard proved a safe place.

  

  Part of the Leisure Issue of The Highlight, our home for ambitious stories that explain our world.

  ---

  The Inkwell, as one of Martha’s Vineyard’s famed beaches is known, stretches hardly 100 yards between jetties on the north shore of the island. To see it, it amounts to just a sliver of sand, but on a sunny day, the sea is vast and the precise color of jade, beckoning swimmers whose families have descended on the island in the summertime for generations.

  Since the 1800s, Martha’s Vineyard (and the Inkwell) has been a renowned getaway for these Black families. The elite mingle with middle-class families on the island: Former President Barack Obama is rumored to have celebrated his birthday this month in his seven-bedroom mansion on Martha’s Vineyard. The island’s regulars over the years have included Henry Louis Gates Jr. and the late Vernon Jordan; Maya Angelou once described the town of Oak Bluffs, which includes Inkwell Beach, as “a safe place where we can go as we are and not be questioned.”

  “I don’t have to catch my breath here,” says Skip Finley, an author and former broadcaster whose family has vacationed on the island for five generations. “It’s the freest place I’ve ever been.”

  

  

  

  Vox sent photographer Philip Keith to Martha’s Vineyard, and to Oak Bluffs specifically, to capture the joy and community travelers find on the island today. The freedoms of Martha’s Vineyard highlight a truth about leisure in America: Lazy days in the sun, miles of coastline, and even the gut-churning and rickety climb up a monster roller coaster have not always been within the grasp of Black people.

  Through the first half of the 20th century, segregationists masquerading as public officials across the country drew literal lines in the sand, parceling less desirable beaches to people of color; shunning Black children from public pools; shuttering amusement parks to anyone but those with fair skin. Postal worker Victor H. Green penned The Negro Motorist Green-Book to guide African American travelers to safe, hospitable places, but the subtext was that the threat of violence could mar even the most benign of pursuits: For Black people in America, neither rest nor relaxation would come easily.

  

  

  Among the safe spaces listed in The Green Book was Shearer Cottage, a Black-owned inn in the town of Oak Bluffs, on the north shore of Martha’s Vineyard.

  Massachusetts was the first state to abolish slavery, and well-off African Americans had already built thriving lives and businesses in the state. “Martha’s Vineyard was part of the underground railroad, so it was known as a safe and welcoming community for African Americans,” says Nancy Gardella, executive director of Martha’s Vineyard Chamber of Commerce. “They didn’t feel entirely welcome in other beach enclaves.”

  Along with the ferry that regularly deposited travelers right in Oak Bluffs, and the legions of Black families who began to visit beginning in the 1800s and then built dollhouse-like summer cottages in town, the inn helped spread word of Martha’s Vineyard’s comforts to families in Philadelphia; DC; Hartford, Connecticut; New York; and Boston.

  Finley, who for years authored a column about Oak Bluffs, estimates that during the offseason, there are only 700 black people who call Martha’s Vineyard home, and, he says, “most of us are retired.” In the summer, the numbers swell markedly, till, he guesses, 30 to 35 percent of the summertime population is people of color.

  “That doesn’t mean that bigotry and discrimination doesn’t exist. Whatever happens in the world happens on Martha’s Vineyard,” says Gardella. At the time of The Green Book, few inns on the island accepted Black travelers, and the image of Martha’s Vineyard in popular culture remains one of whiteness and privilege.

  

  

  

  But the reality challenges any notions of the island as an exclusive place.

  On Martha’s Vineyard, “I can be who I want, when I want. Which is not necessarily true of the rest of the country,” says Finley. “When we get on a boat or plane to leave here, we call it ‘going to America.’”

  

  Philip Keith is a photographer born and raised in Boston. He graduated from the Boston Arts Academy. His last assignment for the Highlight was photographing economist Emily Oster.

From The Hindu: Sports

• Paralympics Games open in empty stadium — just like Olympics - It was a circus-like opening with acrobats, clowns, vibrant music and fireworks atop the stadium to mark the the start of the long parade of athletes.

• England vs India 3rd Test | High-flying India eyeing unassailable series lead and a big knock from Kohli - Kohli’s last international hundred came in November 2019 and though he has scored a couple of 40s in the series so far, the expectations have always been sky high from the modern great

• Mariyappan withdrawn as India’s Paralympic flag-bearer after coming in contact with a COVID positive person - High-jumper Mariyappan Thangavelu was replaced by javelin thrower Tek Chand as India’s flag-bearer for the Paralympics opening ceremony on August 24

• Four Indians enter semifinals of Asian Youth boxing - Seven Indians took the ring in the quarterfinals of the Asian Youth boxing championships on August 23 evening and four of them emerged victorious

• Considering Afghanistan players’ mental health, series against Pakistan postponed - ACB came to the conclusion that it was best to put the series on hold with its players not getting enough time to prepare due to the regime change in the country. The flight operations have also been suspended at Kabul airport.

From The Hindu: National News

• AirAsia India, IndiGo flights came within 8 km of each other on Jan 29: Investigation report - It recommended that suitable corrective training may be imparted to the controller with an emphasis on situational awareness and the importance of warnings generated on the automation system.

• Delhi riots: Why no FIR against Anurag Thakur, Kapil Mishra, asks UAPA accused - Jamia Millia Islamia Alumni Association President Shifa-Ur-Rehman, who was arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in connection with

• Monsoons and the march of the Giant African Snail - People are resorting to unique activities like snail catching competitions to fight the Giant African Snails, which damage crops, plants and even concrete structures

• Punjab Ministers seek legal action against Sidhu’s advisors - They urged the Congress national leadership to direct Mr. Sidhu to immediately rein in his aides in the interest of the party

• Gennova’s mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine gets approval for Phase 2/3 clinical trials - The study will be conducted in the country at approximately 10-15 sites in Phase 2 and 22-27 sites in Phase 3.

From BBC: Europe

• Mar Menor: Tonnes of dead fish wash up on Spanish lagoon’s shores - Ecologists say pollution is to blame, as officials consider declaring the Mar Menor a disaster area.

• Russian toddler lost in woods for four days vows ‘never again’ - The 22-month-old Russian girl was found alive by a search party, four days after she wandered off.

• German poison probe after drinks spiked at university in Darmstadt - Six people were taken to hospital with bluish extremities after using a science department’s tea area.

• Climate change: Europe’s extreme rains made more likely by humans - Heavy rainfall that led to deadly floods in Germany and Belgium was influenced by human induced warming.

• Nice v Marseille: Four-match stand closure ordered and man arrested after Ligue 1 brawl - Authorities in Nice order a four-match stand closure and arrest a 28-year-old man after ugly scenes cause Nice v Marseille to be abandoned on Sunday.

From Ars Technica

• With nothing able to eat them, cane toads are eating each other - It’s creating an evolutionary pressure to grow fast. - link

• The long wait is over: Sony drops teaser trailer for Spider-Man: No Way Home - The reveal comes one day after the trailer apparently leaked on social media. - link

• Study: Ants create stable tunnels in nests, much like humans play Jenga - Caltech scientists used X-ray imaging to capture physics of underground anthills. - link

• GM recalls every Chevy Bolt ever made, blames LG for faulty batteries - Two simultaneously occurring defects will cost $1.8 billion to fix. - link

• At least one species of primate underperforms when the heat is on - After researchers presented a huge reward, monkeys did less well in a skill test. - link

From Jokes Subreddit

• Walking home after a girls’ night out, two women pass a graveyard and stop to pee. -

  The first woman has nothing to wipe with, so she uses her underwear and tosses it. Her friend, however, finds a ribbon on a wreath, so she uses that.

  The next day, the first woman’s husband phones the second woman’s husband, furious: “My wife came home last night without her panties!”

  “That’s nothing,” says the other.

  “Mine came back with a card stuck between her butt cheeks that said, ‘From all of us at the fire station, we’ll never forget you.’”

  submitted by /u/orgasmic2021
  [link] [comments]

• Why do they call them lifts in the UK & elevators in the US? -

  Because we’re raised differently.

  submitted by /u/NHLohlFan
  [link] [comments]

• It is 1939 and a Soviet army is marching on Finland -

  As they pass the border, they hear a Finnish voice over the hill -

  “One Finnish soldier is better than 10 Soviet soldiers!”

  The Soviet general laughs, as he sends 10 men on the hill to capture it.

  There is gunfire for a minute and then everything goes silent for a moment, and they then hear the same voice -

  “One Finnish soldier is better than a hundred of yours!”

  Annoyed, the Soviet general sends hundred men to capture the hill. There is gunfire and bombs going for ten minutes, and everything goes silent again. Suddenly, the same voice yells out -

  “One Finnish soldier is better than thousand of Soviet soldiers!”

  Enraged, the general sends a thousand men, accompanied with tanks, artillery, mortar teams, and tells them to not return until the hill is theirs.

  For half an hour hell breaks loose, bombs and explosions, gunfire, screams and death all around, and then it goes silent again.

  One Soviet soldier crawls back, severely wounded and battered.

  Before the general could say anything, the soldier says -

  “Do not send more troops, comrade general, it’s a trap! There is two of them.”

  submitted by /u/happyysoul
  [link] [comments]

• A blonde walks into a pharmacy and asks for bottom deodorant. -

  The assistant, a little bemused, explains to the woman they have never sold bottom deodorant. The blonde, unfazed, assures the lady behind the counter, that she has been buying the stuff from here on a regular basis, and would like some more.

  The shop assistant thinks for a minute, knowing full well that they don’t stock or sell such an item, smiles at the blonde and says, “One moment please, I will get the Pharmacist.” The pharmacist looks at the blonde and says, “Can I help you miss?” “I would like to buy some bottom deodorant please,” says the blonde. “I’m sorry,” says the pharmacist, “we don’t have any.” “But I always get it here,” says the blonde. “Do you have the container it comes in?” “Yes!” Said the blonde, “I will go and get it.” She returns with the container and hands it to the pharmacist who looks at it and says to the woman, “This is just a normal stick of under-arm deodorant”. The annoyed blonde snatches the container back and reads out loud from the container, “To apply, push up bottom.”

  submitted by /u/ReasonableGator
  [link] [comments]

• A few hours ago I dropped a piece of ice -

  It slid under the refrigerator. I was really upset at first but now it’s water under the fridge.

  submitted by /u/drewigi
  [link] [comments]