Frank New Documentary on Washington, DC’s Hot Dog Entrepreneurs Gets it Right

An excellent new documentary, which premieres next week at the Austin Film Festival, looks at the challenges faced by Washington, DC's food cart entrepreneurs.

The excellent new documentary Dog Days shines a light on the unglamorous world of Washington, DC’s food carts, many of which ring the National Mall and sell boiled hot dogs. It tells the story of “the micro-entrepreneurial world of street vending in our nation’s capital, and explores how two unlikely business partners navigate the cultural, economic, and regulatory barriers standing in their way.”

Dog Days premieres next weekend as part of the twentieth annual Austin Film Festival, where it’s an official selection.

I was fortunate to screen an advance copy of Dog Days last week. I found it to be a smart, measured, and informative look at a difficult profession that’s made no easier thanks to long-stalled regulatory reform.

If you enjoy watching food documentaries for their frequent bromides, smug narrative, or overblown shots of food porn, look elsewhere. But if you want to see the challenges small food entrepreneurs face on a daily basis—with long hours of hard work as their only guarantee—then you’ll love Dog Days.

I sent about two-dozen questions to filmmaker Kasey Kirby, who replied by email. An edited transcript of our conversation appears below.

Reason: What’s your background—and that of your fellow filmmaker Laura Waters Hinson?

Kasey Kirby: Laura and I both have graduate degrees from American University in Film/Video (MFA/MA respectively). I wandered into film after studying accounting/finance in undergrad and working for two years in Chicago as an auditor.

Reason: Why Dog Days? What’s your interest in street food?

KK: I was interested in the story largely because I made a similar transition professionally [to that depicted in the film] in plunging into an industry I didn’t have any experience with and trying to keep my head above water. In addition, as we learned more about street food vending, I became interested in the story of why exclusively hot dogs existed on the streets for so long, when so many other cities had much more vibrant options available.

Reason: When did you start work on the project?

KK: We started shooting the film in the early part of 2009, and continued to shoot off and on for the next four years in between other projects.

Reason: Why did you focus on vendors in Washington, DC?

KK: Laura and I have shot two films together in Rwanda and I also travel abroad quite a bit with other clients, so I started to feel like I knew more about communities in other parts of the world than I knew about my own backyard. For that reason, it propelled both of us to want to invest in a more DC-centric story.

Reason: Mobile food vending is hip now thanks mostly to mobile food trucks. So why did you decide to focus your documentary largely on non-mobile, unhip subjects like food-cart entrepreneur Coite Manuel, an out-of-work engineer, and immigrant hot dog vendors like Siyone?

KK: We began shooting when there were only a few food trucks on the scene, and we loved Coite’s idea of bringing new food to the streets, but working with existing vendors. We also felt like there was a largely untold story there about an immigrant population of vendors that have been selling food on the streets of DC for over 20 years.

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.

  • Ted S.||

    Reason: Why did you focus on vendors in Washington, DC?

    Because, cocktail parties. :-)

  • Snark Plissken||

    "Laura and I have shot two films together in Rwanda..."

    No, they like to focus on places that are torn apart by secular strife and tribal warfare.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    So Rwanda wasn't bad enough anymore. DC, here we come!

  • anon||

    Have you ever been to DC? Seen the film Hotel Rwanda?

    They're basically the same thing.

  • Snark Plissken||

    Except Rwanda has better weather.

  • Doctor Whom||

    That led the city council to establish a moratorium in 1998 to cap the number of vendors at 300 or so and assigning specific locations to those 300, while the council figured out what to do with street food vending in the city.

    Moratoria and caps are the solution to everything. What can possibly go wrong?

  • anon||

    Moratoria and caps are the solution to everything. What can possibly go wrong?

    You say this sarcastically.

    They do not.

  • anon||

  • Irish||

    There was a study on Instapundit the other day arguing that global GDP is almost 2% higher because of global warming.

    That's like 1.5 trillion dollars.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Obama sees that as waste, or lost revenue, or something.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I'm skeptical. The studies I've seen show that the warmer it gets, the more likely people are to sit on their verandas and sip mint juleps rather then engage in productive labor.

  • Irish||

    It also creates far more arable land and people spend less time cooped up inside during the winters.

    There's positive and negative aspects, but overall warmer temperatures are better for economic development than are colder temperatures.

    Admittedly, at the moment, the most powerful parts of the world tend to be cooler, but that hasn't historically been true. Throughout most of history, really prior to the last 500 years, it was the warm parts of the world where power tended to be centralized. Rome, Constantinople, Italy, the Ottoman Empire, Egypt, India, China, etc.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I was being sarcastic, but in fact during the Enlightenment the CW was that people were lazier in warm climates than in cold. I'm not endorsing that idea, of course.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    during the Enlightenment the CW was that people were lazier in warm climates than in cold.

    That explains why civilization started in Norway and not Mesopotamia or Egypt.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    There's positive and negative aspects, but overall warmer temperatures are better for economic development than are colder temperatures.

    You mean the economy of Europe didn't advance during the little ice age?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    There may still be slightly higher productivity in warmer climates, but I suspect this trend has been overcome by technology.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "There was a study on Instapundit the other day arguing that global GDP is almost 2% higher because of global warming."

    That's thinking like Krugnuts!

    If only there were a big enough earthquake, we could really get the economy rolling again.

  • Irish||

    What are you talking about? There are logical reasons to think that differences in temperature could have impacts on the economy. First off, cold weather is more detrimental to human welfare than warm weather. You're more likely to die or have your lifestyle severely hampered by freezing temperatures than by hot ones. Secondly, there are wide swaths of land that become arable with higher global temperatures that are frozen solid otherwise.

    It's in no way the same thing as arguing that earthquakes result in economic growth.

  • Ken Shultz||

    There's a phenomenon we're all susceptible to that I call "Jane Fonda Syndrome". It's where we start out with a reasonable position, but over time, we become more and more convinced and more and more radicalized, to the point that our reasonable position starts becoming unreasonable--to the point that we start arguing that what is bad for us is actually good.

    I call it "Jane Fonda Syndrome" because of how her opposition to the Vietnam War evolved. She started out with opposition to the War--on entirely reasonable grounds--but over time, somehow she went from arguing that U.S. policy was bad to arguing that the Viet Cong were the good guys! They're not torturing anybody over there! They're actually treating American POWs well! Here, I feel so confident about what great guys the VC are, take pictures of me on a communist AA gun with spent shells fired at Americans all around me!

    I see Jane Fonda Syndrome all over the place. Name any issue, and on both sides, you'll find people with Jane Fonda Syndrome. On some of these issues, some of those people might be right on! Maybe having more guns in the community not only isn't bad--it actually cuts down on the rate of violence! Maybe it really does! But those cases are few and far between.

    Let me ask you this: how far are you willing to project the net "benefits" of global warming into the future?

  • Irish||

    I'm not willing to project anything because it's impossible to know what the impact on temperatures will be over time. We have no idea how carbon dioxide interacts with the oceans, something even the IPCC readily admits, which means that it's impossible to accurately predict future temperatures related to carbon dioxide emissions.

    Also, given that there are many other aspects to global temperatures than carbon dioxide, it's impossible to tell when a period of cooling might offset any warming caused by carbon dioxide.

    Saying 'contrary to predictions, global warming may very well have caused positive outcomes up to this point' is not the same as saying that a hotter planet is inherently better regardless of how warm it is.

    You're the one who brought up future temperature and predictions. I did no such thing.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "You're the one who brought up future temperature and predictions. I did no such thing."

    We're talking about the alleged benefits of global warming, right? If we're not suggesting that global warming in the future isn't something to worry about, so much, because of the net benefits of global warming, then why are we bringing up the alleged benefits at all?

    Not only is global warming not a problem--it's actually a good thing?

    I swear to God I've seen this sort of thinking before.

    I mean, if global warming is real--real enough that it has benefits--then do you really want to stand behind the suggestion that those benefits are going to outweigh the downside of coastal flooding, hurricanes, disrupted weather patterns, etc., etc.?

    Personally, I'm much more comfortable arguing that the government solutions to global warming proposed by many environmentalists are more harmful than beneficial--much more comfortable than I am arguing that global warming is actually a good thing. I just think we have stronger ground to stand on, there.

  • Irish||

    Personally, I'm much more comfortable arguing that the government solutions to global warming proposed by many environmentalists are more harmful than beneficial--much more comfortable than I am arguing that global warming is actually a good thing. I just think we have stronger ground to stand on, there.

    I don't believe that global warming would inherently be a good thing. The point is simply that the apocalyptic claims about global warming are based on the belief that it will be an unmitigated bad.

    If there is the possibility of good coming out of it, a possibility that I think you can make a logical argument in favor of, then the hardcore draconian ideas of the environmentalists are even dumber than they would be otherwise.

    Pointing out positives that a warmer planet could have does not mean I'm saying that all impacts will be good, simply that the left-wing millenarian idea that it will be wholly bad is wrong and off base.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    I mean, if global warming is real--real enough that it has benefits--then do you really want to stand behind the suggestion that those benefits are going to outweigh the downside of coastal flooding, hurricanes, disrupted weather patterns, etc., etc.?

    Has any of that been definitively demonstrated to be occurring?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Within the context of a discussion about the benefits of global warming, at least for the sake of argument, we must be assuming that global warming is real.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Uh, no, you must assume the net benefits demonstrated are real. Please look up the term "net" and let me know what you find.

    And just because you must assume GW is real does not mean you must believe every prediction about its negative outcomes.

  • ||

    No. We mustn't. By starting with the assumption that global warming (as a set of theories and concepts defined by academic nutjobs), you lose any credibility of arguing in good faith. It's an empty hypothetical.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Excuse me, now you're saying that it's impossible to make rational assumptions involving various scenarios?

    I can't help but notice that we seem to be climbing up on that AA gun along with Hanoi Jane. You know how she got up there?

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/11.....a-picture/

    ...one step at a time.

    People are gonna use this stuff against us someday.

  • ||

    I'm saying it's irrational to make baseless assumptions involving absurd scenarios.

  • Square||

    "cold weather is more detrimental to human welfare than warm weather. You're more likely to die or have your lifestyle severely hampered by freezing temperatures than by hot ones"

    Is this why disease and starvation rates are so much higher in Sweden and Canada than they are in central Africa and India?

  • Irish||

    No, that's because of the horribly run governments in Africa and India. Throughout virtually all of history warm weather areas were better off than cold areas. That has only recently changed because the governments of colder areas are vastly superior to the current governments of warm areas.

    Obviously warm countries will function worse if they're worse run because heat is not the only determinant of economic success, it is simply one of many.

    If you'd like me to lecture you on correlation vs. causation and on the fallacy of assuming that present conditions are how things have always been, then I'd be glad to do so.

    If you'd just like to throw around glib one liners free from any sort of historical or economic context, I guess you can do that too.

  • Square||

    "If you'd like me to lecture you on correlation vs. causation and on the fallacy of assuming that present conditions are how things have always been, then I'd be glad to do so."

    Please do. Not all of us have taken Freshman Comp.

  • ||

    Sweden- stable, western democratic country with high per capita income.

    India- overpopulated, shitty government, clings to old cultures and customs.

    Africa - A shithole.

    Sorry, you said temperature had something to do with this?

  • Ken Shultz||

    If you don't think tropical diseases have something to do with temperatures, then you're outta yer mind, Jane.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_diseases

  • ||

    And yet influenza claims far fewer lives in temperate regions such as Canada, the U.S., and most of Europe. Go figure..

  • ||

    Then again, I'm not surprised that you put those words in my mouth. What will he come up with next?

  • Ken Shultz||

    I didn't put words in your mouth: I proposed an "if" in response to this:

    Sorry, you said temperature had something to do with this?.

    IF IF IF, you don't think temperatures have something to do with tropical diseases...

  • Square||

    Your point?

  • Square||

    This was in response to:

    And yet influenza claims far fewer lives in temperate regions such as Canada, the U.S., and most of Europe. Go figure..

  • ||

    My point? That shitty governments correlate more strongly with death rates and disease than temperature does.

  • blcartwright||

    maybe all the readily available food in warm areas led to overpopulation that dragged down the overall quality of living

  • ||

    "maybe all the readily available food in warm areas led to overpopulation that dragged down the overall quality of living"

    Yeah, let me go tell those fat-ass Ethiopians.

  • blcartwright||

    deserts don't count. but take a stressed situation and add bad govt then you get starvation in the midst of food

  • Ken Shultz||

    I know it seems counterintuitive, but protein is relatively hard to come by in the tropics.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Ken isn't very knowledgeable on these matters, as you can clearly see.

  • playa manhattan||

    I think there might be 2 Kens. Sometimes he says some incredibly intelligent things, and then there's this.

  • Ken Shultz||

    If you don't understand what I'm saying saying (maybe because I don't always communicate what I'm saying well), that doesn't mean the ideas are stupid.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    No, Ken, you started talking about infinite more warmth, which no one said anything about. We're talking about present facts. you misread.

  • Ken Shultz||

    See my reply above.

    Am I supposed to be less concerned about global warming in the future because of the net benefits or not?

    If not, then why are we talking about the benefits? Help me understand.

  • ||

    Yes. You should be less concerned with global warming in the future. Reasons why:

    1. Short term increases will see increased land available for living space and agriculture.
    2. If temperatures increase, say an average of 5 degrees over the next 100 years, warmer regions still remain viable living space. Colder climates become more hospitable.
    3. High, long term increases in temperatures have shown to create more dense rainforests in response to increased rainfall.
    4. Any long term temperature increases are mitigated through the carbon cycle. So long as we have liquid water and plate techtonics, those mean nasty greenhouse gases will be sequestered into the oceans back into the mantle.

    5. If you, or any organization, really gave a pendantic shit about the problem, you'd start planting more trees.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Did you know that smoking tobacco is something of a cure for ulcerative colitis?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....MC3122262/

    Smoking might be good for you!

    Have you ever heard people say in regards to helmet laws--that it's safer not to wear a motorcycle helmet?

    I have! ...a bunch of times.

    I hope I'm not offending anybody, but I think a lot of my fellow libertarians...um...don't have any balls. They're too scared to say that they'd rather take their chances with more terrorism than lose the Fourth Amendment.

    So they feel compelled to push arguments about how unconstitutional surveillance doesn't really make us safer.

    They're afraid of what people will think if they say they'd rather keep their Second Amendment rights--even if it means more innocent people being shot!

    So they feel compelled to push the argument that people are safer with more guns around...

    I'm not saying any of those arguments are false, but I am saying...not every argument can be that way--just because I don't like standing up for my rights on other grounds.

    I'd keep the Fourth and Second Amendments, anyway--even if they meant more terrorism and more innocent people being shot. Some of us have become so wrapped up in utilitarianism, we're missing the forest for the trees.

    I sure don't need to pretend global warming is a net positive to oppose everything the progressives want to do about it. I think doing so would play right into their hands.

  • ||

    "Have you ever heard people say in regards to helmet laws--that it's safer not to wear a motorcycle helmet?"

    Have you ever heard Ken give an intelligent reply that didn't involve deflection, misdirection, or a non-sequitur?

    Do you even know what we're talking about at this point? I mean, you've brought up tobacco, Jane Fonda Syndrome, and a wiki link about 'Tropical Diseases". Can you make at least make the attempt to make your analogies relevant?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Can you make at least make the attempt to make your analogies relevant?"

    Smoking is good for you.

    It's safer to ride without a motorcycle helmet.

    Tropical diseases aren't affected by temperatures...

    Global warming is good for the economy.

    They're all great examples of what appears to be Jane Fonda Syndrome.

    Jane Fonda didn't want to hear about how awful she looked up on that AA gun either.

  • ||

    That's cool, since that doesn't apply at all to this situation.. But whatever makes you feel like you're not out of your league on this conversation.

  • ||

    Jane Fonda - one woman who's opinions changed over time.
    AGW dissenters - millions of people who hold different perspectives on the constantly-shifting arguments that climate change supporters propose.

    Totes the same thing, Ken Doll.

    "Global warming is good for the economy." That's because it more than likely will be.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Global warming is good for the economy." That's because it more than likely will be.

    LOL.

  • SForza||

    I'm a little late to this party, but I'm pretty sure global warming is much a Laffer Curve. Depending on where we are on the curve, global warming can have net benefit or net harm. Obviously, at some point, more warmth would be harmful. I have no idea where we are on that curve, or how we would determine that.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    I often just ask people if they would rather be safe or free.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Unfortunately, a lot of them would rather be safe.

    AI think that's one of the biggest problems we have, and the way to fix it doesn't have a lot to do with utilitarianism.

    Yeah, I have a general qualitative preference for more freedom over more security, and we used to call people who didn't share that preference? We used to use words like "coward" to describe them.

    Preferring safety to freedom is something I think a lot of Americans used to be ashamed of. And getting that kind of culture back won't come from pretending that the dilemma never exists. That all the things that make us more free are actually safer, that isn't going to fix that...cultural hole in our national culture.

    We gotta be really bold about it, and if we really feel that way about our freedom, it isn't hard to be bold. People nowadays get downright angry if you tell them that you'd rather see another 9/11 than lose the 4th Amendment.

    Let 'em get angry. And then call them cowards. Worst thing the Bush Administration ever did was make a virtue of cowardice.

  • Square||

    To weigh in here, because I think I see what Ken is saying, I don't think that Ken is assuming that global warming will be infinite.

    I think what he is saying is that this "global warming is maybe a good thing" discussion presumes that global warming is, in fact, happening. If global warming is, in fact, happening, then it is folly to assume that it is going to happen only up to some "optimal for humans" point and then stop.

    It also fails to take into account the idea that there may be some negative consequences to global warming if it is in fact happening.

    I think he makes a valid point about "Jane Fonda Syndrome." A lot of "climate change skeptics" tend to say "global warming isn't happening" and "the globe is actually cooling" and "if global warming is happening, humans aren't causing it" and "if global warming is happening, it's probably good, because liberals are against it."

    These arguments, especially in the aggregate, are unpersuasive and smack of partisan reactionism. If we're really concerned about oppressive government policies, addressing those policies and their ineffectiveness at addressing their own stated goals is the place to go if you want to make any actual headway.

    Random denials that are not even self-consistent won't bring anyone around to a different way of thinking.

  • ||

    That's not "Jane Fonda Syndrome". That's "Differing Opinions on the Implications of 'global warming' Syndrome". There's been various opinions stated here, yet they all raise serious questions and highlight different problems with mainstream AGW theory.

  • Square||

    Except the same people hold every single one of them even though they contradict each other.

    This doesn't make your opponents see you as someone to be taken seriously.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Thank you.

    Never felt so well understood.

  • ||

    Really? Then stop trying to attribute a multitude of opinions to every individual that has dissented against the AGWPOCALYPSE narrative.

  • Ken Shultz||

    That was addressed to Square.

  • Square||

    "stop trying to attribute a multitude of opinions to every individual that has dissented against the AGWPOCALYPSE narrative."

    I don't think anyone has done that. You seem to be willfully missing the point.

    If you are arguing that global warming is good, then you accept that it is happening. No argument there, right? Good, we can move on.

    If it is happening, then these arguments that global warming might have some hypothetical benefits needs to also take into account that it might have some hypothetical downsides. Like the extinction of all creatures with a body weight of more than a couple of pounds (which has, in fact, happened before, so please don't dismiss it is some fantasy scheme from the evil liberal conspiracy.)

    If you really want to express something that resembles real skepticism, and not just a knee-jerk "liberals are stupid," there are better angles to argue from.

    1) we probably can't control the climate, and any attempt to do so is likely to cause more harm than good

    2) we need to weigh any attempt to control any impact we may be having on the climate against the consequences of those attempts on our livelihoods.

    Maybe it's not even happening. Which would be great. That's another really good angle.

    Saying that it's happening but, what the hell, it's probably a good thing, may get you some pats on the back from ideological purists, but to anyone else it just seems silly.

  • ||

    I don't think anyone has done that.

    Ken just did, actually. Repeatedly.

    Saying that it's happening but, what the hell, it's probably a good thing, may get you some pats on the back from ideological purists, but to anyone else it just seems silly.

    who is this mysterious person making all these claims at once?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Ken just did, actually. Repeatedly."

    I did what?

    I pointed out that there are a lot of libertarianish opponents of government action in response to AGW out there who have become so radicalized that they end up saying things...

    Maybe their heart is in the right place!

    But you know what happens when you try to frame a guilty man?

    OJ walks free.

    Except in this case, it's the court of public opinion we really need to worry about losing. You know what it's like? It's a bit like the scandal of the AGW scientists who got busted by the hackers for all sorts of shenanigans. IF AGW is a problem, it's a problem--even if the leading scientists trying to prove it faked their data!

    Thing is, though, they set their movement way back by doing that.

    We don't want to make those mistakes. Climbin' up on top of that AA gun is a big mistake in the court of public opinion. We already have an uphill battle, no sense in making it harder for ourselves by pretending harmful things are actually net beneficial.

    We're shooting ourselves in the foot. Sorry if pointing that out makes people mad.

    Well, no I'm not.

  • SForza||

    We know that global warming isn't happening, or at least hasn't happened in any meaningful way for the last 15 years or so. We also know that global warming has happened over the last 150 years or so. We also know global cooling happened during the 800 years that preceded the last 150, cooling much more in those 800 years than it has warmed in the last 150 years. We also know that dramatic warmings and coolings have occurred repeatedly over the course of human and non-human history.

    We don't know whether any of this global warming (or cooling, previously) was man-made (AGW), but it'd be strange if we weren't responsible for at least a negligible amount of warming (or cooling), since all beings have some effect on the ecosystem in which they live.

    In some dumb way, I don't care about the court of public opinion. I care about knowledge, and maybe more importantly, the limits of knowledge. I really wish people-- and especially scientists sucking at the government teat-- would stop claiming to know things that we absolutely do not know.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "In some dumb way, I don't care about the court of public opinion."

    It's just that the court of public opinion keeps handing us things like TARP, ObamaCare, and the NSA. At least, the court of public opinion doesn't want to indict or prosecute the vile presidents in the voting booth who keep perpetrating that garbage against us.

    One of the reasons the court of public opinion supports these god awful presidents is because they think of our position on things like AGW the same way we think of Truthers and Birthers. ...and I just think the very least we should do is to stop gift wrapping our enemies more ammunition to use against us.

    Especially if it isn't going to do us any good anyway. Going around telling people not to worry about AGW becasue of the benefits of global warming is gonna do about as much good as Tony coming over here to preach his prog propaganda with us. Does anybody do more to make progs look stupid around here than Tony?

    Let's not be like Tony.

  • SForza||

    I tend to see TARP, ObamaCare, and the NSA as things handed to us in spite of public opinion. I see your point about public opinion bringing to power the leaders who handed us this, though I don't think I agree with it.

    I wouldn't tell anyone not to worry about AGW, but I might tell them to go be the change they want to see in the world & quit nagging me about it.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    There was a study on Instapundit the other day arguing that global GDP is almost 2% higher because of global warming.

    That figure comes from a study directed by Bjorn Lomborg at the Copenhagen Consensus that tasked 5 of the world's leading economists to quantify what scientists (both social and physical) have identified as the biggest problems facing humanity:

    Global warming is surprising, because the impact now is positive. The increased level of CO₂ has boosted agriculture because it works as a fertilizer. At the same time, the number of people dying from heat waves are more that outweighed by fewer people dying from fewer cold waves. In all, global warming benefits have increased from 1900 to almost 1.5% of GDP by now, but by 2025, they will peak and begin a rapid decline, leading to a net negative towards the end of the century.

    Lomborg generally buys that global warming is caused by humanity and that it will ultimately be a net cost economically, though I'm not sure how his views have changed in light of predictions not coming to pass and climate models shown to be bordering on fraud because of their gross inaccuracy other than to say "see? it isn't going to be so bad."

  • Ken Shultz||

    Makes me want to take that Reason cruise since I think Lomborg is going to be there.

    I would point out that whether AGW exists and whether it's going to be net beneficial are two different questions.

    Also, my solutions involve doing things we should be doing even if AGW isn't a problem. No matter whether AGW is a problem or how bad of a problem it's going to be, we should be opposing the solutions on offer from the progressives, regardless.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I think one of our biggest problems is that so many of my fellow libertarians dislike the progressives' solutions so much, that they'd rather argue that the problem doesn't exist--whether it does or not.

    There, I said it.

    It's a defeatist outlook. It's basically conceding that libertarians have no AGW solution to offer--so we better just keep denying that any problem exists?

    I see it completely the opposite way. As new data continues to come in, the consensus wobbles and changes--that's the way science works. Meanwhile, no matter what the science says tomorrow, libertarian solutions are the best solutions to problems of property and governance--libertarianism offers the best solutions to all the problems we'd have if the very worst of the AGW predictions were completely accurate.

    And the only thing that disheartens me a little bit is that so many of my fellow libertarians don't seem to think so. They just keep going with what amounts to denialism, and that sucks. Because if and when AGW does turn out to be demonstrable problem, scientifically, the voters aren't gonna come to us for solutions--because they're gonna think we don't have any.

    They're gonna go to the progressives.

  • SForza||

    "libertarians have no AGW solution to offer"

    This libertarian has a solution. I sequester a shitload of carbon into the soil of our farm. Not because I fear global warming, but because it enriches the soil, minimizes (or reverses) erosion, and allows us to feed our chickens at no marginal cost. It slows the rate at which our local landfill will fill, but more importantly, it will make me immensely rich in the coming years.

    But, whatevs.

  • Ken Shultz||

    There are lots of great libertarian solutions out there.

    There always are.

    And they're all better than anything the progs have to offer. And one of the worst things about the progressive solutions is that they're feckless.

    The worst thing that could happen is we all make great sacrifices for the solution, and the solution proves to be entirely insufficient to solve the problem anyway! And that's a great description of what the progressives are selling.

    Huge sacrifices that won't solve the problem anyway. Libertarian solutions can get much better results. ...and there's no need for anybody to go around saying that global warming is going to be beneficial.

  • SForza||

    But someone needs to point out that global warming can be beneficial. Because it can be. At the very least, it needs to be pointed out that global warming brings both harms and benefits. If a person wants to worry about AGW, they should think about how they can benefit from it, and what they can do to mitigate or minimize their exposure to its harms.

  • blcartwright||

    except there's been no warming for 15 years.

    Even Michael Mann, who has said in 2009 that temp rise had continued unabated (over the past decade), this year admitted it's been flat since 1998. But don't tell anyone that.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    AGW is going to lead to so much food being grown that farmers will go bankrupt and we'll all starve.

    / progtard

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Could global warming be a boon to farmers? A recent study found that rising carbon dioxide concentrations bestow an additional $11.6 trillion in benefits from crop production between now and 2050.

    a. Why would this be a boon to farmers? Is there currently demand for food that's not being met? Seems to me that since demand is satiated already, the efficiencies gained will allow current levels of production to be met with FEWER farmers. It's a boon to the consumer, perhaps, but I don't see how the farmers benefit unless demand increases. What am I missing?

    b. There is no Global Warming.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    There may be global warming but not AGW.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    No significant increase in average global temperature in 16 years.

    The one thing the media/politicians can't spin is reality.

  • Snark Plissken||

    Apparently you've experience much different media/politicians than I have.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    All snark aside, the point is, particularly with an issue like AGW, that eventually the truth of the matter will make itself known and no amount of spin can claim that temperatures are rising when they are not.

  • Snark Plissken||

    Yeah I know. They can't spin reality forever, but they damn sure are gonna try.

  • np||

    Now accepting bitcoin: Seattle-based mobile grilled cheese truck

    “The actual transaction is fairly simple: customers waltz up to our truck, drawn in by our irresistible cheese magic, and let us know they would like to pay in bitcoin,” says Bo Saxbe.

    And the bitcoin business has been good. Actually, it has been much better than the brothers had expected.

    “We’ve had one or two bitcoin sales every hour since we started using BitPay. Of course, that’s only been a few days, but we were expecting just a few every week.”
    The Durin’s Bane sandwich with a cup of soup. Source: Cheese WizardsThe Durin’s Bane sandwich with a cup of soup.

    Selling Harry Potter themed sandwiches such as the Voldemorta-Della or the gamer-centric Tomato Basil Soup Power Up can draw a pretty tech-savvy crowd. And for Cheese Wizards, it’s become pretty obvious that their customers like to spend money via bitcoins.
  • SweatingGin||

    It's funny -- I see spots where I want to pay with bitcoin, but Gresham's Law kicks in and I end up paying with dollars. Have to start using bitcoins just to get more places accepting them, I guess.

  • SweatingGin||

    Price of bitcoin jumped up a bunch last night. Around $20 up since yesterday afternoon. Sounds like China is getting going.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Maybe it's just all the ransomware.

    http://arstechnica.com/securit.....-bitcoins/

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    With the government shutdown, the NSA was unavailable to undo the work of these cyber criminals. Just like when there is no shutdown.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Or maybe the NSA's employees, with all that extra time on their hands, just had to find themselves somethin' to do.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    If the "extra time on their hands" theory were valid, wouldn't everybody be infected by now?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Well they don't have the same equipment at work as they do at home. So, maybe they're limited to ransomware and, you know, webcam extortion, stuff like that.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Incidentally, that would be the next step in the NSA's evolution--if they aren't doing this already...

    If they're monitoring everything else, why shouldn't they be able to look at everyone through their webcams.

    After all, we might be terrorists!

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    I guess I am way behind on this. I thought Bitcoin transactions took an hour or so to clear?

  • SweatingGin||

    Transactions get included in a block, and each block added after that one is a confirmation. Each confirmation makes it much harder to reverse (you'd have to generate another block chain, that would be longer than the real one).

    So, after 6 confirmations (about 1 hour), it's essentially irreversible. After 1, you might be able to reverse it if you control a lot of the network.

    Of course, if you control millions of dollars worth of hashing power, and intend to use it to reverse transactions (so you can double spend), you probably are going to go after something bigger than lunch.

    Essentially, just having the transaction hit the network (with enough of a fee to be included quickly) is probably fine for any small transactions. For a bigger one (selling this bar of gold for 10,000 BTC, say), you probably do want to let it have a few confirmations. For small ones, the costs of an attack are so far in excess of the benefits, that it really isn't a worry.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    That clears it up a bit. Thank you.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Where are they getting the Balrog from?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    With it's reputation trashed, a prominent conservative says of the Heritage Foundation, "the lunatics have taken over the asylum".

    http://thecable.foreignpolicy......redirect=0

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Did you read the article? It says

    -But the paper's conclusions did not sit well with DeMint, the sources said, who worried about offending or alienating more libertarian lawmakers such Sen. Rand Paul, a DeMint ally and leading critic of NSA's collection of Americans' phone records, as well as Tea Partiers, who according to a recent poll think that government counterterrorism policies have gone "too far" in restricting civil liberties.

    I do not support suppressing papers (though they are certainly free to do so if they wish), but if the Heritage Foundation's new leadership feels it must hew to a more libertarian friendly line than I think that is frankly a plus.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I don't know, Bo Cara...

    It's hard to believe Shrike would only see what he wants to see. He just wouldn't do something like that.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Before the subscription notice popped up, I saw a reference to "debt-deniers." Strangely, this did not refer to Obama but to his "extremist" Republican opponents.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Yes, I read the article. The finding was that under the new FISA/PATRIOT Acts (all three of them) the current NSA activity is completely legal.

    Rather than have a conversation on how to amend the laws DeMint has swept the issue under the rug in a craven political stooping.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I am no fan of 'craven political stooping' per se, but since it is pretty rare to get some in our direction I am hardly broken up about it when it happens!

  • Jordan||

    Of course, FISA and the PATRIOT Act are themselves illegal. Not that I'm shocked that the One True Classical Liberal (tm) doesn't believe so.

  • blcartwright||

    when the Snowden thing first broke I heard John Bolton being interviewd where he was saying "don't worry, the law is carefully crafted, there are strict guidelines" but my analysis was "yeah, but wasn't Snowden saying Obama didn't give a f?*& about the law and was just doing whatever he wanted?". There's two different problems there - how much does the law allow, and does whatever admin is in power actually adhere to the limits in the law?

  • Mike M.||

    Bill Russell arrested for having gun in his carry-on bag at Sea-Tac Airport.

    Russell is far from a stupid man, so I suspect he's getting forgetful in his old age.

  • Snark Plissken||

    Proof the NBA should adopt helmets to avoid head injury?

  • Snark Plissken||

    Preferably pink helmets to highlight breast cancer.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Klingons perform Rick Astley's "Never Gonna Give You Up" in their own language

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0YC3RpvE3M

  • Ken Shultz||

    If you hadn't warned us what we would find when we got there, we should be able to sue you for posting that.

    I'm just sayin'

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Click here for a Rickroll that will blow your mind:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uo7aYJhhxbQ

  • BakedPenguin||

    Oooh, smack talk about that guy.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "Stravinsky once dismissed Vivaldi's music as "the same concerto 400 times.""

    I'd rather hear Vivaldi 400 times than Stravinsky once.

  • BakedPenguin||

    I agree, but the criticism does have some merit. Still, better one good concerto than a horrible opera.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    They often sound similar, but I understand that he was using his music to train his orphans - they were probably grateful for getting to rehearse similar music, especially since it was good music.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Sure, trot out the deformed kids. Honestly, though, so long as he didn't have any unusual predilections, that was a very human (and Christian) thing to do. Even if he just wanted an orchestra that worked cheap, there weren't many people who would have cared about them.

    Vivaldi was good, but repetitive. The obvious exception was Four Seasons, which pretty much had to be distinct from each other, as well as from his other works. There's a reason why they get played tons more than his other works.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I was *defending* his work with the orphans. Giving them good music to practice on was great.

  • BakedPenguin||

    I was *defending* his work with the orphans

    I know. My smart ass reply was meant along the lines of "his good works have no bearing on his merit as a composer."

    Giving them a place to live and food to eat was great. The music was just a bonus.

  • Reverend Mayhem||

    Please. Vivaldi is Renaissance Musak.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Only two problems with that assertion: It wasn't Musak, and he didn't live in the Renaissance.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I'd rather hear Vivaldi 400 times than Stravinsky once.

    That's because you have no taste nor a discerning ear.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I'm sure Stravinsky's music is better than it sounds.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Student transferred from advanced math class to easier math class. Both his parents are lawyers. Guess where this is going.

    http://www.orlandosentinel.com.....9027.story

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    (he was making a D in the advanced class)

  • wareagle||

    let me guess....they'll sue to outlaw grades on the grounds that it hurts the feelings of the lower achieving kids.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    They want their kid to be challenged by the higher-level course, even if he isn't exactly doing particularly well at it.

    There is a legitimate *educational* case to be made for forcing students into challenging courses - but I don't think it's a *legal* case. They can always look for a school of choice with more challenge.

    I'll say this much for them - they're not seeking to go easy on their offspring, but to expose him to difficulties in his classes. I'm not endorsing this, just noting the difference with many other parents.

  • Fluffy||

    The story is poorly written, but I think one additional wrinkle here is that the parents think the teacher of the advanced class is a dick, but when they complained about him the administration's response was to drop their kid into the less advanced class.

    I hate the litigious society as much as, if not more, than the next guy, but in theory if you side with the administration here schools everywhere could just transfer the kids of any parent who gives them a hard time into retard classes.

    "You worked against the school budget? Fine. We'll now put your kid in class with the drooling helmet wearers. Good luck getting him into college."

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    That's why I mentioned the option of schools of choice - I imagine that rich folks, at the very least, have such options, and in Florida I understand that even the poor and middle class have more options than they used to.

    The threat of lawsuits are part of what makes public schools even worse than they would otherwise be - zero tolerance being one example, along with the "due process" rights of troublemakers.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Good luck getting him into college.

    Well, the world needs ditch-diggers too.

  • blcartwright||

    how about this - if you don't like how your school is teaching your kids, find a different school, or teach them yourself. When stuck in a govt monopoly, many times the only recourse is to sue.

  • Irish||

    Hell of an article by Daniel Hannan at the New Criterion.

    He talks about living in Peru when he was young and mobs attacking his father's property during 'land reform.'

    This was the Peru of General Velasco, whose putsch in 1968 had thrown the country into a state of squalor from which it has only recently recovered. Having nationalized the main industries, Velasco decreed a program of land reform under which farms were broken up and given to his military cronies.

    As invariably happens when governments plunder their citizens, groups of agitators decided to take the law into their own hands. It was the same story as in the Spanish Second Republic, or Allende’s Chile: The police, seeing which way the wind was blowing, were reluctant to protect property.

    How dare he slander the noble name of Salvador Allende? Doesn't he know Allende's Chile was a socialist paradise?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "That led the city council to establish a moratorium in 1998 to cap the number of vendors at 300 or so and assigning specific locations to those 300....[which] paved the way for a drastic reduction in the number of depots that were needed down to three (of which I believe one more has shut down), in essence creating a monopoly [sic]."

    I think it's hard for the people of Washington D.C., so many of whom work for the government, to imagine that regulation could be the problem. If regulation is partially to blame for D.C.'s problems, then who's to blame for America's problems? It certainly can't be regulation or the people who work for the government!

    I grew up in DC, and even I'm having a hard time feeling sorry for the people who work there, anymore. I feel bad for the tourists, reluctantly, but the people who work for the government don't deserve delicious street food. Let them eat government cheese.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I did not know Ann Coulter supported NYC's stop and frisk laws so strongly. In the quoted article she actually praises the program and its founder (Giuliani, she says) for bringing Biblical Old Testament peace unto the land.

    -Stop-and-frisk was a crucial part of the package of law enforcement measures implemented by New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani that saved the city.

    -Liberals wail about guns, but how do they imagine police get guns off the street without going to high-crime neighborhoods and stopping young men acting suspiciously?

    -As soon as the word gets out that it's now safe to carry weapons, spray paint, drugs and stolen goods again, criminals will rule the streets and the elderly will, once more, be confined to their homes.

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/a.....z2iB8VCMql

  • Ken Shultz||

    Ann Coulter is a media troll, and like most trolls, it's better just to ignore her.

  • Irish||

    Statists are statists regardless of party. Ann Coulter is a dyed in the wool Republican statist, a creature that might actually be more evil than the Democrat counterpart.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    I'd counter she's NOT a statist. She's in favor of a free market economy and she's fiscally conservative. She's also completely against civil liberties.

    That makes her...

    ...wait for it...

    A REPUBLICAN!

    (At least what a Republican used to be before the libertarians took over the Republican party. ;-) We should come up with a catchy names to denote the old republicans from the new libertarian republicans.)

  • Square||

    "she's fiscally conservative"

    She's fiscally conservative if you don't count the military.

    Which is to say, she is not fiscally conservative.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    You prove my point. She is the stereotypical Republican.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Not Just Margaret Sanger, Racist Quotes by Early Pro-Abortion Activists

    "The National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (now called NARAL Pro-Choice America) is one of the oldest pro-choice organizations in the United States. It was founded in 1969. One of the founders was Lawrence Lader, a pro-choice activist who wrote a book called Breeding Ourselves to Death. In this book, Lader puts forth many arguments as to why anti-abortion laws should be done away with. On page 23 of the book, he makes the following statement:

    "'Above all, society must grasp the grim relationship between unwanted children and the violent rebellion of minority groups.'

    http://www.lifenews.com/2013/1.....ign=Buffer

  • Zeb||

    So what? We get it. You don't like abortion. And some people who favor legal abortion are bad people. Pushing this guilt by association shit isn't going to change anyone's mind.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    These are the folks who helped *make* abortion legal. They're not random people picked out of the choicer phone book.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    1. Since abortion was illegal in nearly every state that also had laws such as Jim Crow laws, I imagine there is some significant overlap between those who supported making abortion illegal and racism as well. I do not know what this proves about modern 'pro-life' people, but of course I do not know what you prove by finding early supporters of reproductive rights that held racist views common at the time.

    2. I am not even sure that quote is necessarily racist. It could mean that lowering unwanted pregnancies among minorities, who of course were often living in significant disadvantage, could alleviate some of the suffering and often related discontent in minority communities.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    1. Abortion used to be illegal in *all* states until Lader and his pals came along. At least one former Jim Crow state (North Carolina) legalized abortion in part from the desire to cut the welfare rolls, and reduce the number of disabled kids (black and white) in state homes for the disabled.

    2. The quote's natural meaning is that if you kill these black kids in the womb, they won't grow up to be violent rioters and criminals. This was in the context of black race riots in the sixties.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    1. I am not sure how your comments here are responsive to my point at all. If abortion was illegal in all states, and some of those states were Jim Crow states, then certainly there is going to be significant overlap in those who supported and instituted Jim Crow laws and those who supported and instituted anti-abortion laws, no?

    2. That is certainly not the only or 'natural' reading of the quote. Unwanted pregnancies create added burdens and hardships on top of the frustrations of poverty and discrimination that was fomenting discontent which often turned violent in black communities at the time. That was actually the standard line, especially liberal line, and in that context the quote simply says 'realize that unwanted pregnancies is exacerbating the problem in these communities.'

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    1.

    2. The quote I cited was 'Above all, society must grasp the grim relationship between unwanted children and the violent rebellion of minority groups.' There were others who concern-trolled about the burdens of unwanted children for minorities. That may be true for unmarried mothers, but there are ways short of abortion to avoid single motherhood, and people of all races used to use these techniques.

    Want to know more? Click keepyourlegscrossed.com

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    1. If it was illegal everywhere, that indicates that the Jim Crow states were not particularly motivated by racism when they extended legal protection to unborn black children.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    But it certainly shows that many supporters of Jim Crow were also supporters of abortion being illegal.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    And many supporters of Jim Crow also wore clothes. And Hitler had a dog.

    Now, if supporters dressed differently than opponents, or were naked, then you might argue for a correlation between dress and racism.

    And if anti-nazis didn't own dogs, you'd be able at least to make a start on arguing for a correlation between racism and dog-owning.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    But clothes and dogs are not political positions.

    Your entire first post was 'look at this woman who held abortion rights views, she also held racist views!'

    And as I said, since democratic majorities in all the Jim Crow states also maintained anti-abortion laws I imagine it would be pretty easy to find supporters of abortion rights who also held racist views.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    " 'look at this woman who held abortion rights views'"

    It's a man, baby! Not many women are named Lawrence.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Dude looks like a lady to me!

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Wow, you really went there. So the quote is obviously racist because she should have told minorities (and everyone else) to avoid the added burdens of unwanted pregnancies by keeping their legs crossed.

    Wow.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    What's wrong with unmarried people - of all races - keeping their legs crossed?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    What's wrong with unmarried people-of all races-opening them up?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Look around at the people from all races coming from broken homes. It's not as if they all commit crimes, but their life chances are more limited than from intact homes.

    Of course, if they were killed in the womb, their life chances would be even worse. So the conclusion (abortion) does not follow from the premise (children in difficult circumstances).

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -Look around at the people from all races coming from broken homes. It's not as if they all commit crimes, but their life chances are more limited than from intact homes.

    Ah, so it is really YOU that are 'concerned' with the sexual activities of minorities which contribute to violence.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    How do you get that from "It's not as if they all commit crimes, but their life chances are more limited than from intact homes"?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    when "they" was specifically tied to "children of *all races* coming from broken homes."

    This is as silly as your racists wear clothes argument.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    It is you that are worried, that if blacks would just stop uncrossing their legs more they would have less of this children whose 'lesser life chances' will mean more of them get into crime. Hilariously, it is a mirror image of your misreading of the abortion rights supporters quote.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Are you aware that the birthrate among all races didn't go up as single parenthood went up? It's stayed about the same, or gone down. What's gone up is broken homes.

    You seem to be invoking stereotypes, or assuming that marriage is some sort of anti-natal policy.

    And wanting children to have better life chances isn't the same as wanting fewer black kids. Lader (who mentioned minorities but not broken homes, which weren't as common at that era) was the one wanting to kill the black kids.

    Those who don't go as far as Lader and concern-troll about disadvantaged kids generally don't offer the one solution which would give kids a better advantage - fewer broken homes and more marriage.

    Like the slaveowners of old, they don't object to black people having sex but don't want them to form marital bonds.

    I don't want to respond to kids from broken homes by killing the kids with some Department of Pre-Crime.

    And if I offered no suggestions for helping with the problems of "unwanted" children, you'd be saying that I wasn't offering realistic solutions to compete with abortion.

  • Irish||

    Like the slaveowners of old, they don't object to black people having sex but don't want them to form marital bonds.

    Who doesn't want black people to form marital bonds? Liberals might not realize the negative impact their policies have had upon African American marriage, but I don't think the average leftist actively wants black families to dissolve.

    This seems like a massive straw man.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Revealed preferences.

    If you express indignation at the suggestion that unmarried people (regardless of race) keep their legs crossed, if you actually subsidize single motherhood, if you promote divorce and sneer at even the mildest reforms of no-fault, if you mock the idea of marital families being healthier (as was the custom in sophisticated circles until fairly recently, when the problem became obvious and the exigencies of the SSM cause made it expedient to criticize the sexual habits of heterosexuals) - if you do all this, you might still have a *subjective* preference for marriage (at least for yourself and your own offspring), but you're setting your face against it as a matter of public policy.

    (generic "you")

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "It is you that are worried, that if blacks would just stop uncrossing their legs more"

    I missed the first time I read your post.

    If you check, you will see that I said "unmarried people" should keep their legs crossed, not black people.

  • blcartwright||

    them not wanting to take responsibility for their actions, which results in a few million dead kids. They want the fun with no chance of consequences.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Right, arguing for eugenics to stop the uncontrollable breeding of violent minorities before its too late isn't racist because you like killing babies, or something.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    The quote said 'unwanted children,' you said 'stop the uncontrollable breeding of violent minorities.'

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The quote was about "the grim relationship between unwanted children and the violent rebellion of minority groups."

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    And I explained the best reading of it, and did not change any or ignore any part of it, unlike VG who said 'uncontrollable breeding of violent minorities', which was not in the quote.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The quote isn't all that far apart from VG's summary.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Yes it is, as I have explained elsewhere.

    Saying the burden of unwanted pregnancies may add to the discontent of blacks in the late 1960s is quite different than saying blacks are violent and have uncontrollable breeding habits.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Right, like I said you don't see the racism because you like abortion.

    Change it to a prohibition on pornography, or anything else and the racism screams out.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Let me ask you this: was it not a common line among the left in the late 1960's that 'violent rebellion' from blacks (the riots and militancy) sprang from economic and political disadvantage? And is it not reasonable to think that a supporter of abortion rights would be sensitive to the added burden an unwanted pregnancy could bring to an already disadvantaged home?

    Now read that quote again.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    So the white reader seeing that part about "violent rebellion of minority groups" would say, "gosh, I'm really concerned about the disadvantages."

    If Lader subjectively thought that he was supporting the best interests of minorities, then by that standard the supporters of Jim Crow often thought the same. Doesn't make it less racist.

    "Those minorities and society would be better off if more mothers killed their children" is just as racist as your paraphrase - "those minorities and society would be better off if minorities were slaves."

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The first quote is your paraphrase, etc.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    You are doing exactly what VG says I am: reading your abortion views into the comment. Lader most certainly would not have seen aborting 'unwanted pregnancies' as minority 'mothers kill[ing] their children.' He would have seen it as getting rid of an unwanted pregnancy (certainly not the same thing to him, right?), and he would have seen an unwanted pregnancy as an additional burden. Combined with the context that the common liberal line about minority discontent was linked to disadvantage the natural reading is most likely the one I gave it.

    Liberal thinkers in the 1960's were worried about 'violent rebellion' (riots and militancy) among 'the black community as much as anyone, they just ascribed the problem to disadvantage, and said addressing the disadvantage would quell the rebellion.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Who did Lader think was engaging in these violent rebellions? His solution was laid out in black and white. (so to speak)

    "Lader most certainly would not have seen aborting 'unwanted pregnancies' as minority 'mothers kill[ing] their children.'"

    So what? How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg? Answer: Four, because a tail isn't a leg.

    Just because choicers don't use words like "kill" doesn't mean there's no killing. Just like the proslavery crowd talking about "domestic institutions" doesn't make slavery go away.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -Just because choicers don't use words like "kill" doesn't mean there's no killing.

    I get that pro-choice people and pro-life people use different loaded terminology, but my point here is that if you are trying to discern what a pro-choice person was getting at in a quote you probably should not insert your pro-life terminology and understandings into it.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Lader calls it a leg, I call it a tail. Of course each side claims its terminology is correct. That's part of the disagreement.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Eduard, let me try to show you why I think your line of argument proves little.

    Let's take Anthony Comstock whom this pro-life source extols in this way:

    -Between 1873 and 1877, he “probably prosecuted more abortionists... than any other person in the United States.” After his five years of aggressive action, “abortion-related advertising declined precipitously throughout the nation.”

    http://lastdayswatchman.blogsp.....-life.html

    Well, it turns out that Mr. Comstock was a pioneer in the use of federal commerce powers to regulate the activities of his fellow citizens.

    -The Comstock Laws were an important part of that policing
    process, a process that gave the federal government expanded powers
    to coerce individual Americans into accepting normative standards of
    belief and behavior.

    http://archives.econ.utah.edu/.....00223.html

    So, using your argument: since Comstock was a pioneer in fighting abortion AND a pioneer in expanding federal power (and in the service of fighting abortion to boot!), and at a time when such regulation was nascent, then I guess people who fight abortion must be supporters of expanded federal power.

    Now, I do not believe such a silly argument. The question is why you do when you apply it to abortion supporters who happen to have racist views.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I won't get sucked into defending Anthony Comstock or your article, but I'm not sure how much he expanded federal power. His namesake law (still on the books today) banned the transmission of porn, abortifacients and birth control (and advertisements for same) through the US mail. He wasn't the one who (for better or worse) set up the federal postal system (or its monopoly on certain postal services). He got a law limiting what the government could deliver in the mail, and backed up that law with penalties who nevertheless used the government mails for that purposes.

    But I'll grant that he expanded federal power by using the postal monopoly to punish people who communicated certain types of literature. And of course prolifers want to expand federal power to force the states to defend the rights of the unborn, just as the civil rights movement wanted to expand federal power to force the states to protect the rights of black people. I don't endorse federal prosecution of every crime against black people or the unborn - it's a state matter, but the feds should force the states to do their duty evenhandedly, and not to declare the unborn or black people to be outside the protection of the law.

    It's not as if every federal power is a shocking usurpation.

  • Hyperion||

    OT, but this seems bizarre to me, if true.

    Businesses to attack conservatives/tea party

    WTF? This can't be right. There is only one argument that could support this, and that would be that if you are a huge corporation who can dole out big crony bucks, then you might get more bang for your buck from the Dems. Otherwise how could this possibly make sense?

    Let's say, you are a small landscaping or construction biz and you need more cheap migrant labor. How could that work out for you when putting another super majority of dems in office would surely result in you getting crushed into oblivion by high taxes and insurmountable regulations? Not to mention that you would soon be paying your cheap labor a much higher minimum wage and providing benefits that you cannot possibly afford. This is just more peak derp, the country has went insane.

    Note, I am pro immigration reform. But not in favor of this government touching it, because they will not reform anything, they will fuck it up worse and stuff the bill full of pork and totally unrelated non-sense.

  • Irish||

    The businesses want large amounts of immigration because it's cheap labor to be utilized.

    Also, they aren't talking about supporting Democrats over the Tea Party. Here's what it says:

    According to the Wall Street Journal, groups like the Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable are thinking about "backing challengers to tea-party conservatives in GOP primaries, increasing political engagement with centrist Republicans." The Chamber of Commerce is reportedly "researching" what races they can influence in GOP primaries "in hopes of replacing tea-party conservatives with more business-friendly pragmatists" who would include support for comprehensive immigration reform.

    They want big business Republicans that will give big businesses money and are upset that the Tea Party is opposed to corporate welfare.

  • Hyperion||

    Remind me again, what's the difference between the Dems and the establishment Republicans who will bend over backwards to give the Dems everything that they want?

    Cheap labor will not save them from the Dems regulatory lust.

    Also, again, I am pro immigration, but I do realize the results of 10 million or so more minority votes. A lot of Latin Americans are very conservative socially. But they will vote for leftist politicians because that is what they are accustomed to. Most of them have no idea of the concepts of individuality and small government.

  • Irish||

    Cheap labor will not save them from the Dems regulatory lust.

    It will if they're big businesses. Big businesses are helped by overregulation. It smothers competition in its crib while big businesses are free to use their teams of lawyers to side step the regulations that obliterate smaller competitors.

    This is the basic fact that idiot liberals refuse to understand.

  • Hyperion||

    It will if they're big businesses

    Read my original post again, I fully understand this.

    And yes, the useful idiots blame it all on the big evil corporashunz and give their enabler, big government, a totally free pass. They're not called useful idiots without good reason.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The 'groups' are lobbying arms of large mega corps.

    They do not, in any way represent the interests of entrepreneurs, small or even large (but not massive) businesses.

  • Winston||

    Remind me again, what's the difference between the Dems and the establishment Republicans who will bend over backwards to give the Dems everything that they want?

    Kind words from Welch and Suderman?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Yep.

  • wareagle||

    the US Chamber is just as supportive of amnesty as the Dems, just for different reasons. Cheap labor being the most obvious one.

    Also, the Chamber loves using the heavy foot of govt to regulate potential competitors out of business or to simply stifle their ability to infringe on Big Corp territory.

    What the TP has done is upset the comfortable world the establishments on either side enjoy. They do the ritual kabuki of pretending to be mortal enemies then engage in a political 69 so that each can maintain power. Most of these folks are friends and they look after members of the club. These TP barbarians threaten the "rules" of the institution.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    A dirty secret of the big business endorsement of immigration reform is that employing illegal immigrants helps small businesses level the playing field against large ones. Make the legalize those immigrants and the advantage disappears - which is why big business supports it - not because they want more labor mobility or lower labor costs.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    A lot of the pork in the 'comprehensive immigration' bills currently discussed are 'border control' measures asked for by conservative, anti-immigrant lawmakers. Democrats are happy to give that to them because, pork! and they do not trouble themselves with concerns over spending. But they are not usually the ones who ask for or demand those provisions.

  • Hyperion||

    I know that there were lots of things shoved in there by the Republicans, like McCains 'New and improved Berlin Wall'. McCain is also a prog.

    I would be shocked if we dig through that bill and don't find lots of garbage stuffed in by BOTH parties.

    As far as the GOP and the Dems are concerned, we are typically equal opportunity haters around here, in case you haven't noticed, the GOP get no free pass here.

  • Irish||

    As far as the GOP and the Dems are concerned, we are typically equal opportunity haters around here, in case you haven't noticed, the GOP get no free pass here.

    Eh. People say this, but we go after the Dems A LOT more than the GOP. I think that's because there are a lot more people in the GOP who we are closer to agreeing with us than the Democrats, but it's dishonest to claim that we attack them both equally.

    It's like when feminists say they just want 'equality.' It might make them feel better, but it's also a blatant lie.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Part of it is that the Dems have essentially been in total control for a while now.

  • Hyperion||

    People say this, but we go after the Dems A LOT more than the GOP

    True, Irish, but why? Because they deserve it, not because they are on the flip side of team purple.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    I put it to you that we go after both sides on the issues that deviate from libertarianism. If there is an unevenness about this, it would based upon the degree that each Team deviates from libertarian principle.

    That and certain issues may carry more weight than others as their impact is more pronounced.

    Personally, if I were forced to choose between Team Red and Team Blue based upon the above criteria, I'd have to go with Team Red.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I think it is silly to call McCain a 'prog.' He was a Reagan Republican. He is a conservative, just of the 'national greatness' and 'security conservative' tradition. If we are going to use 'prog' to mean 'statist' we should just go with the latter.

  • Virginian||

    He's a prog, just a hundred years out of style. Progs were not always vegan hand wringers. National greatness was an integral part of the Progressive Era.

    Put it this way: If McCain isn't a prog, why does he consider Theodore Roosevelt to be a great politician and leader, someone to emulate?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Business Groups are almost entirely cronyist organization looking for 'their share' of the loot or regulatory advantage over their competitors.

    Small businssmen are generally too busy running their businesses to get involved in lobbying.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Hey, here's an idea: let's turn this into a thread about abortion. And about evul SocCons.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Lay off those poor SoCons!

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    It's Abortion Saturday.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Ed, if you had your way, it would be Abortion 24/7.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I *could* have it my way if I wanted. For all practical purposes, Reason doesn't ban particular topics of discussion. And there's no shortage of abortion stories.

  • Ted S.||

    Putting all the abortion comment threads in 24/7 would be a good idea.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    OT, but this seems bizarre to me, if true.

    Businesses to attack conservatives/tea party

    The National Chamber of Commerce does not qualify as a "free market friendly" organization. Crony capitalists get pissed when somebody tries to derail their gravy train.

  • Ken Shultz||

    That's exactly right.

    When you see a stock swoon in reaction to the fear of a shutdown, you're looking at a stock that depends on taxpayer money. And if the economy needs us to cut back on payments to those companies, then we need to see those stocks swoon.

    Talking to progressives is like talking to children, sometimes. It's like their criteria is childish...

    If the policies you advocate are good for business, sometimes, then they figure that's where you're getting your orders from, I guess. How would we know what to think if big business wasn't there to tell us?

    Maybe since they let the president tell them what to think, that's how they think the rest of us operate, too?

    I don't know. I'm done tryin' to figure out the stupid. I just know that progressives are the lowest of the low-information voters.

    It's like arguing with creationists. I'd rather have nothing but creationists in power--so long as they weren't so stupid on the economy. I'd certainly rather have children praying to Jesus in public schools than Obamabots setting economic policy.

    Yeah, that's right: progressives are both dumber and worse than creationists.

  • Irish||

    Yeah, that's right: progressives are both dumber and worse than creationists.

    They're also grotesque hypocrites. They force left-wing propaganda into schools and then complain about right-wing propaganda in those same schools.

    Creationism should not be taught in school, but progressives would have more moral authority on this issue if they weren't turning schools into indoctrination camps while bemoaning the horrors of creationism.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The point I'm trying to make is that creationism is just as dumb or dumber than progressive economic policies.

    Believing that our economy needs a central planner is just as dumb or dumber than believing that life on this earth required a central creator.

    The central planner stupidity is even dumber if they don't believe in creationism--because they should know better. We're dealing with willful retards.

    Creationism is a lot less harmful than progressive economic policy is, too.

    And it's funny, because people like Shrike and Tony come here every time they think they found something that proves the progressives are right--like we're all gonna abandon evolution and become creationists now because of some stupid piece of evidence they think they found...

    A more willfully obtuse group of low-information voters I can hardly imagine.

  • Hyperion||

    I don't really see how creationists can be anyway near as dangerous as progressivism. Yeah, they had some bad runs such as the Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials. But, I don't really have much fear of todays SoCons, even the most fanatical ones.

    They are both religions. They just have a different Gawd. The creationists at least admit they are religious, but the progs try to hide it behind all sorts of facades, like social justice.

    I would take my chances with the creationists, who tell me if I don't submit to their Gawd that I'm going to a bad place after I die, to the progs, who tell me that if I don't worship their Gawd, the gubmint, that I'm going to be arrested, imprisoned, and probably killed now. And they have proven time and time again, that this is exactly what they plan.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Where do you get the idea that SoCons are above using the 'gubmint' to 'arrest, imprison and probably kill [that latter part a bit over the top for both groups I should think]' you if you violate their precepts? These are the same people who supported criminalization of homosexual acts, who support criminal punishments for selling violent video games to minors, and pornography to adults. These same people supported restrictions on business dealings with Blue Laws, the teaching of evolution and the sale of alcohol.

    I do not see any evidence they are less statist than progressives.

  • Hyperion||

    I don't see the hate and vitriol and open threats of violence coming from the SoCons as I do from the Progs. You are entitled to your own opinion, but I don't see the SoCons openly calling for rounding up, arresting, and imprisoning or executing their political opponents.

  • Hyperion||

    Also, even if you want to say that the SoCons are potentially as dangerous as the progs, it's a moot point. The progressives are in complete control of our education system, the media, and most of the government. The SoCons have no real power and that is waning by the day.

    So, it makes no sense at all to be afraid of the SoCons. The progs, on the other had, be very afraid.

  • Irish||

    I don't see the hate and vitriol and open threats of violence coming from the SoCons as I do from the Progs.

    I think that's entirely based on the decline in their political fortunes. Given the horrible things that people like Anthony Comstock were up to in the early 20th century, there's clearly a history of violence and oppression from social conservatives.

    People tend to chill on the 'let's kill our opponents' rhetoric when they aren't in power. When your opponent has control of the military and police, it tends to be a bad idea to agitate in favor of state violence.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I once read a column by William Buckley about a "worse case scenario" in which fundamentalist leader (and eccentric person) Pat Robertson was able to implement his entire agenda.

    Buckley pointed out that this would simply go back to the social policies of Fifties America - a broader definition of pornography, no condoms-on-cucumbers in the public schools, etc. And before you freak out, the Fifties was actually a fairly socially-liberal era in comparison with most societies throughout history.

    In contrast, a progressive takeover would be like the Seventies on steroids, but without the Carter-era deregulation, abolition of the draft, tolerance of tobacco and soft drinks (and MJ), kids playing in the streets, or other versions of fun and freedom.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    The blue laws of the fifties? Books by 'hard core pornographers' like D.H. Lawrence and Henry Miller being banned? Homosexuality criminalized? The insipid Hollywood Code, the Comics Code.

    I am no fan of the 70's, but choosing between it and the 50's would be like choosing between the proverbial rock and a hard place.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I said the 70s on steroids, stripped of all its libertarian developments.

    Lawrence and Miller's books were allowed to be imported to the US in 1959, which sounds like the Fifties to me.

    Under the "insipid Hollywood code" we had such insipid 50s movies as *On the Waterfront,* many excellent Hitchcock works, and of course *The Blob.* Would that modern Hollywood could be so insipid!

    The comics code didn't have to be relaxed to allow the canonical 60s classics like Spiderman, etc. As far as the Code was concerned, they could have been released in the 50s instead of waiting for the 60s.

    Homosexuality wasn't criminalized, or else *Some Like it Hot* could not have been made. Sodomy was criminalized. And I would like to see the number of Lawrence-style prosecutions of gays living together in monogamous relationships who had sodomy in private, which is the extent of the right proclaimed in 2003.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Thank god we are libertarians and not forced to choose between the lesser of two weevils.

  • SIV||

    Comstock was more of a progressive.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....03490.html

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I only remember one major Presidential Candidate (Santorum) calling out libertarians by name recently, and he was a Republican and SoCon.

  • Irish||

    Socons are just as bad as progressives. I just don't think they're a threat anymore due to the rapid decline in their political power and an increasingly atheistic and secular electorate.

  • Hyperion||

    ^THIS^

  • Ken Shultz||

    I think creationits are must more reluctant to impose themselves on the rest of society than progressives are. Imposing progressive ideas on the rest of society through the force of government is practically the very definition of "progressive"

    When intelligent design was hot topic, what was it, just ten years ago? There were some school boards in the South that wanted to teach it in public schools. Those school board members were voted out--by a majority of self-identified Christians.

    Can you imagine self-identified progressives voting a progressive out of office because he or she was imposing a progressive idea on people who didn't want it?

  • Square||

    "I think creationits are must more reluctant to impose themselves on the rest of society than progressives are."

    I have to disagree with you there. Creationists have a long history of imposing themselves, often quite violently. They tried in Kansas and Pennsylvania and failed precisely because they just don't have the numbers to be bullies anymore (not that they've realized it).

    Not defending progressives - I think it's actually the exact same impulse (save the world) with different ideological content.

  • SIV||

    who support criminal punishments for selling violent video games to minors

    California and Connecticut are our most socially conservative states with their blue laws and violent video game bans.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Yes, some SoCons may be for some kinds of Blue Laws, but the biggest Blue Law advocates are the progressives.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Believing that our economy needs a central planner is just as dumb or dumber than believing that life on this earth required a central creator.

    And as you note, it's a lot more dangerous because creationists don't try to jump to the conclusion that they should be god, but proglodytes do.

  • Hyperion||

    Talking to progressives is like talking to children, sometimes

    Sometimes?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Judd Gregg was on Bloomberg yesterday, whining about how those crazy fucking Tea Party nihilists "aren't interested in governing". Anybody who tries to restrain the growth of government obviously just wants to watch the world burn.

  • Hyperion||

    And by governing, they mean maintaining a club of elite rulers who keep their boot on the neck of the serfs, and their hands in every pocket.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Frank New Documentary on Washington, DC’s Hot Dog Entrepreneurs Gets it Right

    The Senior Managing Editor of Titles deserves a special award for this one.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Grambling Football Team Refuses to Play Game Due to State of Program

    Per Dohrmann's report, state funding for the university has dropped from $31.6 million to $13.8 million since 2007-08, and in recent years, the football program has run a deficit over $1 million.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I have to wonder if this includes money that is donated to the school by alum and boosters who would not have done so sans Grambling's legendary football program.

  • Hyperion||

    Funny, how the progs hate on one of the only politicians in DC that even wants to talk about our out of control spending.

    Rand talks debt and spending

    Americans want leaders who are willing to rein in a government that is completely out of control

    Sorry Rand, but I just am not quite that optimistic. But we'll see in 2016 when you talk like you did in that article and Hillary talks free shit and some simple slogan like moving forward or hope and change. IOW, there isn't much hope that you will be proven right.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    and Hillary talks free shit and some simple slogan like moving forward or hope and change.

    Forard, SIMPLETONS!/b

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Speaking of simpletons...

    + w

  • Hyperion||

    -1 edit feature

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Proofreading is for chumps.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    And before you freak out, the Fifties was actually a fairly socially-liberal era in comparison with most societies throughout history.

    Wave that cape.

    The fucking government has its tentacles a little more deeply intertwined in my everyday life now than it did in the fifties.

  • Hyperion||

    They have their tentacles in all of our lives a hell of a lot more than they did even during the 70s, and even the 80s. The big government explosion and super nanny movement didn't start until the 90s, and then went exponential growth after 2001.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Way back in the nineties, a cop needed a legitimate reason to pull you over and search your vehicle. What a foolish, deluded, innocent time that was.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I watched about ten minutes of that "Weed Country" show (I think that's what it was) this morning.

    "Tonight, on Weed Country, a bunch of jacked-up thugs with no respect for the laws of the land intimidate, rob, and pillage Americans who pose no discernible threat to anyone. Watch as these vicious mercenary parasites terrorize the people of Northern California." No thanks.

    We're fucked.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Which of the following is dumber?

    One young [climate] activist, a sophomore at Harvard, told Stephenson that she grew up “privileged in a poor rural town.” Inspired by the civil-rights movement, her early climate activism was undertaken “in solidarity” with Third World peoples: “I saw climate change as this huge human rights abuse against people who are already disadvantaged in our global society. . . . I knew theoretically there could be impacts on the U.S. But I thought, I’m from a rich, developed country, my parents are well-off, I know I’m going to college, and it’s not going to make a difference to my life. But especially over this past year, I’ve learned that climate change is a threat to me.” When one of her fellow protesters said: “You know, I think I could die of climate change. That could be the way I go,” the thought stuck with her. “You always learn about marginalized groups in society, and think about how their voices don’t have as much power, and then suddenly you’re like, ‘Wait, that’s exactly what I am, with climate change.’”

    I'm not sure which of these two Harvard students is dumber. The one who thinks that climate change could kill her and legitimately believes that it might, or the one who believes that climate change has made her a victim on par with blacks during the 50s.

  • Snark Plissken||

    The victim gambit is a race to the bottom.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    In academic discourse, where the global warming panic foments without regard to reality on the ground, being a victim is what lends legitimacy to a person making an argument. If all one can do is sympathize with an oppressed group, you can only play second fiddle. But if you are one of the oppressed (even if the oppressed group is completely made up based on ideology by those claiming oppression) you are given license, in academic parlay, to completely dismiss the argument of your perceived oppressors, and to actively attack them. Being a victim is the key to having a legitimate voice in their discourse. It's fucking sick.

  • JidaKida||

    Smack Daddy is not gonna like that.

    www.Got-Privacy.com

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Did the censors finally kill LardoSardo?

    If only pornbot had been as tenacious as you, anonbot.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Yeah, where did that guy go? Let me fill in for him/her.

    Meet Myra, the sexy, saucy teacher! If you give the wrong answer in *her* class, she'll detain you after school and give you the discipline you need and secretly crave.

    Then check out Adele, the waitress. She'll take *any* order.

    And for the ladies (or those with the same tastes as ladies), there's Jim the Handyman. You'll get to see more than his crack! And you believe what he does with his tool

  • SForza||

    Barack Daddy Frapp is not gonna like that.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I saw climate change as this huge human rights abuse against people who are already disadvantaged in our global society

    We must defend those poor ignorant savages in the Third World from the devastation of economic development and increased wealth!

    Forward, SIMPLETONS!

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    They'll be happier in the long run without power, food and medicine.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    They'll be happier in the long run without power, food and medicine.

    That's not how apocalyptics (read: virtually all environmentalists) understand the issue. The long run, in their view, can only be understood as third world peoples continuing to suffer in poverty, or death to us all. There is no possibility of people continuing to fare better economically (and therefore suffering from fewer health issues, malnutrition, illiteracy etc) without destroying the earth and humanity along with it.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    THIS.

    But they would never see it that way because they see global warming, and the disaster they claim will befall us because of it, is caused by capitalism and economic development. In their view of the world they are better off living in destitute poverty than dead.

    Over the last half-century, leftist intellectuals have identified two great scapegoats for the world’s woes. First, Marxism designated capitalism as responsible for human misery. Second, “Third World” ideology, disappointed by the bourgeois indulgences of the working class, targeted the West, supposedly the inventor of slavery, colonialism, and imperialism. The guilty party that environmentalism now accuses—mankind itself, in its will to dominate the planet—is essentially a composite of the previous two, a capitalism invented by a West that oppresses peoples and destroys the earth. Indeed, environmentalism sees itself as the fulfillment of all earlier critiques. “There are only two solutions,” Bolivian president Evo Morales declared in 2009. “Either capitalism dies, or Mother Earth dies.”

    People wanting to not suffer from the indignities of poverty will kill themselves, and we must stop them, for their own sake.

  • wingnutx||

    This documentary lacks theology and geometry.

  • juliajuli2734||

    my neighbor's aunt makes $86/hour on the computer. She has been unemployed for 5 months but last month her payment was $21941 just working on the computer for a few hours. go to the website
    ==========================

    http://www.works23.com
    ==========================

  • CatherineJLin||

    just as Carol responded I didn't know that people can make $6819 in 1 month on the computer. read this
    http://WWW.JOBS72.COM

  • CatherineJLin||

    just as Carol responded I didn't know that people can make $6819 in 1 month on the computer. read this
    http://WWW.JOBS72.COM

  • juliajuli330||

    my buddy's step-aunt makes $82 hourly on the computer. She has been out of a job for eight months but last month her pay was $21595 just working on the computer for a few hours. Recommended Site
    ========================
    http://www.works23.com
    ========================

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement