Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
We Can Now Kiss Don Young's Ear!
The NY Times has a story about good ol' American outrage at the pork larded into the transportation bill and gives a shout out to Reason Online:
Some people in Alaska suggested [giving back] their share of the transportation bill, particularly $223 million to build a bridge from the city of Ketchikan to an island with barely 50 people. They started a Web site, americagivesback.org; held rallies; and waved around a symbolic check for hurricane relief in place of "two bridges to nowhere," a reference to two bridges for which Alaska received about a half-billion dollars in the spending bill.
The Heritage Foundation, which has long served as an intellectual font for influential Republicans, and its philosophical cousin, the libertarian magazine Reason Online, took up the same cry.
To which Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) responded:
"They can kiss my ear!" Mr. Young told a reporter from The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, when asked about the proposal of returning federal money. "That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard," he added.
Whole Times thang here.
Reason's righteous anger on display here.
|9.29.05 @ 11:03AM|#
While this garners a good bit of respect from those Alaskans, they don't deserve it when they elect idiots like Young who love wasting my money.
The Anti-Puritan|9.29.05 @ 11:50AM|#
I think Young meant to say, "Stick it in your ear," lingering on the r in your almost enough to give the next word another r.
|9.29.05 @ 11:51AM|#
htimsh, it does raise the visibility of these moronic projects, though. And maybe, just maybe they'll boot the lard lover right out of office at the end of his term. That would be a great message to send (but then, I've been woefully wishing the electorate would hold its reps responsible for quite some time now, with little success).
|9.29.05 @ 12:02PM|#
Alaska is now the second largest body in the Union, eclipsed
only by the ego of its House Representative.
Its starting to look like it may be possible for the Democrats to
find a centrist, fiscally conservative member of their party (there
are actually many in so-called "red" states) and successfully run
him/her against Young. They could try that guy who ran against
Murkowski in the last senate election, he at least came close.
|9.29.05 @ 12:08PM|#
Dang, Reason is the "philosophical cousin" of the Heritage
Foundation? Oye.
Hey, I thought that we'd trimmed all the fat from the federal
budget that could be trimmed! Isn't that what our now-indicted
friend Mr. Delay told us? I mean, what are they supposed to do?
Just NOT build a bridge to some obscure island with 50 people on
it? But how'll they get to the mainland! You heartless
monsters.
The Anti-Puritan|9.29.05 @ 12:31PM|#
rafuzo:
…(but then, I've been woefully wishing the electorate would
hold its reps responsible for quite some time now, with little
success).
Alas, the electorate aren't willing to take responsibility for
their own choices in the voting booth, so they shift blame to "The
Politicians" and cheer on bad ideas like campaign-finance laws.
M1EK|9.29.05 @ 12:36PM|#
"Reason is the intellectual cousin of Heritage, says the NY
Times?"
Considering how often Reason writers (and H&R commenters) will
look at clear, objective, malfeasance by Republicans and go through
every rhetorical twist possible, as well as a healthy dose of
delusion, to assert equal malfeasance by Democrats,
I do not find the NY Times' grouping of Reason with Heritage to be
unreasonable in the least.
"The guy down the street who ran down a family while driving drunk
is bad. And let's not forget to mention that this other guy who
drove a mile over the limit is bad too. See? I SAID they were both
bad! That PROVES I'm not biased!".
|9.29.05 @ 12:49PM|#
In the nearly 3 years that I've read Reason, I've never gotten
the vibe that the staff writers have a lot in common with Heritage.
Then again, I perceive the difference between Heritage and Reason
to be quite large. Others might perceive it as rather small.
The commenters on this forum, however? Some of them definitely give
me that sort of vibe.
M1EK|9.29.05 @ 12:59PM|#
thoreau,
I have noticed that MOST (but not ALL) of the Reason writers who
post the articles here in H&R bend over backwards in the
artificial-balance game. That's a different tactic than that used
by some of the more obviously Cornerite commenters here, but no
more non-partisan.
|9.29.05 @ 1:03PM|#
M1EK-
I've noticed some of that in the blog posts, but to a lesser extent
in the articles. I wonder if some of it is to pacify the audience:
"Yeah, we know, the other guys suck too. We're not saying they
don't, it's just that the current article focuses on the side
that's in power. But we do agree that the other guys suck too."
|9.29.05 @ 1:04PM|#
"Dad, I need to practice every day."
"I'll practice you!"
"'I'll practice you?' What does that even mean?"
Seriously - "they can kiss my ear?"
|9.29.05 @ 1:14PM|#
"but then, I've been woefully wishing the electorate would hold
its reps responsible for quite some time now, with little
success"
Yeah, the problem is that it is a tragedy of the commons. If you
vote for a guy who won't bring home the pork, it's not going to
stop the Feds from taxing you and sending the pork to W.VA or MA or
NC. That's how unlimited democracy works.
It's funny that those who most consistently harp on the necessity
of heavy government regulation to solve commons problems think that
the biggest commons problem of them all can be solved merely by
having the "right people" doling out the profit from the
commons...
|9.29.05 @ 2:11PM|#
In the nearly 3 years that I've read Reason, I've never
gotten the vibe that the staff writers have a lot in common with
Heritage. Then again, I perceive the difference between Heritage
and Reason to be quite large.
Same here.
Has anyone heard this Don Young guy in action? I picture sort of
cross between Ross Perot and Yosemite Sam.
|9.29.05 @ 2:12PM|#
In the nearly 3 years that I've read Reason, I've never
gotten the vibe that the staff writers have a lot in common with
Heritage. Then again, I perceive the difference between Heritage
and Reason to be quite large.
Same here.
Has anyone heard this Don Young guy in action? I picture sort of a
cross between Ross Perot and Yosemite Sam.
|9.29.05 @ 2:29PM|#
In case anyone missed it, Robert Byrd (Bloodsucker - West
Virginia) is running for Senate again in 2006.
It is not easy work, but I enjoy doing all that I can for West Virginia. I know how to deliver. I have been practicing my craft for years and, with your support, I will keep on giving you all I've got. I want to help build West Virginia's future.
|9.29.05 @ 2:30PM|#
As someone who's been known to "harp on the necessity of heavy
government regulation to solve commons problems," I've never stated
that the solution was "having the "right people" doling out the
profit from the commons." Though, apparently, the liberal in your
head has stated this at least once.
I've always stated that the solution is to establish enforeceable
rules that restrict the behavior of those in the position to take
from the commons (such as the Pat Go rules that were in effect
during the 1990s).
|9.29.05 @ 2:34PM|#
Unfortunately, Don Young gets the last laugh. He's one of those
members of congress that realizes that his constituency is entire
local. what people in West Virginia, Los Angeles, or Michigan think
of his politics matters very little. That's why Pork(tm) works. And
that's why were doomed to finance it.
Paul
|9.29.05 @ 2:36PM|#
I've been woefully wishing the electorate would hold its
reps responsible for quite some time now, with little
success
I've been wishing that we could hold them responsible with tar
again myself. Fat chance though. We can't even burn effigies
anymore without someone complaining for some reason. All the good
protest methods are gone.
|9.29.05 @ 2:36PM|#
And maybe, just maybe they'll boot the lard lover right out
of office at the end of his term.
I would think recipients of lard tend to retain the folks who bring
it home.
|9.29.05 @ 2:37PM|#
M1EK,
Considering how often Reason writers (and H&R commenters)
will look at clear, objective, malfeasance by Republicans and go
through every rhetorical twist possible, as well as a healthy dose
of delusion, to assert equal malfeasance by Democrats...
As you are a Democrat I'd expect such a charge from you.
I do not find the NY Times' grouping of Reason with Heritage to
be unreasonable in the least.
Of course you don't. Giving us copious examples of why you do such
lumping might be useful though.
|9.29.05 @ 2:44PM|#
M1EK,
Considering how often Reason writers (and H&R commenters)
will look at clear, objective, malfeasance by Republicans and go
through every rhetorical twist possible, as well as a healthy dose
of delusion, to assert equal malfeasance by Democrats...
As you are a Democrat I'd expect such a charge from you.
I do not find the NY Times' grouping of Reason with Heritage to
be unreasonable in the least.
|9.29.05 @ 2:50PM|#
I've been woefully wishing the electorate would hold its
reps responsible for quite some time now, with little
success
I've been wishing that we could hold them responsible with tar
again myself. Fat chance though. We can't even burn effigies
anymore without someone complaining for some reason. All the good
protest methods are gone.
|9.29.05 @ 2:51PM|#
The term "cousin" is broad enough to include both pro-business
capitalist in the Heritage Foundation and pro-market capitalists at
Reason.
Hell, the Trots and Stalinists did like being lumped together,
either.
|9.29.05 @ 2:57PM|#
I admonish my colleague, Representative Young, to think of the children before he invites us to "kiss his ear."
|9.29.05 @ 2:57PM|#
M1EK, one of the nice things about the fringe-of-the-fringe that
is Reason is their ideological consistency. They do tell corporate
fatcats to go shove it on occasion, when they're getting too
smoochy with the government.
Hak, no one from the AFL-CIO went to the Northern Mariannas with
Jack Abramoff to celebrate their violation of the human rights of
Chinese workers. Nor MoveOn.org. Nor Emily's List. Nor the
Brookings Institute. Yet plenty of Heritage people, and at least
one Reasonoid, was bellying up to the bar.
|9.29.05 @ 3:00PM|#
joe,
Your views are whatever you say they are at any particular time.
And yes, in the past you have called for the nationalization of at
least one industry, the airline industry. What you have done is
basically change your tune over time, likely due to the sorts of
influences you have been exposed to here.
...establish enforeceable rules...
Which in turn leads to agency capture, abuse, etc. Sorry, but big
old regulatory agencies aren't a solution, they merely feed any
particular problem. If you want to regulate something the best way
to do that is to create a market trading system in whatever is
regulated and let the companies, etc. figure out how best to meet
the demands of that market.
M1EK,
BTW, I'll that despite your charges, none of the behavior you claim
is copious and required is available for view here on the write-up
or in the comments section. You'd think you'd be smart enough to
make your silly charge in a write-up where you could find an
example of it.
|9.29.05 @ 3:07PM|#
joe,
I'm a pro-individual capitalist.
The AFL-CIO opposes free trade on one principle; protecting the
jobs of AFL-CIO members.
|9.29.05 @ 3:10PM|#
joe,
Remember, as you told us before, everyone laughs at us and doesn't
pay attention to us at the same time. Is that supposed to be a koan
or something? :)
|9.29.05 @ 3:52PM|#
"I've always stated that the solution is to establish
enforeceable rules that restrict the behavior of those in the
position to take from the commons "
Who is going to "enforce" these rules? Party hacks, dependent on
special interest money, elected by voters? People appointed by
those who get elected, and therefore dependent on their
goodwill?
I see nothing distinguishing your proposal from hoping that only
good, decent people (the "right" people) have access to the
commons.
M1EK|9.29.05 @ 3:54PM|#
"As you are a Democrat I'd expect such a charge from you."
I voted for my first Democrats for major office in 2000, in disgust
with the impeachment debacle. I voted Republicans for Congress in
1992 and 1996, and Perot for President in both cases.
While technically you're correct that I "are a Democrat", your
implication that I'm some sort of liberal is way off-base.
Try again.
|9.29.05 @ 4:41PM|#
I am so totally ignoring the Hak. Nationalize the airline
industry? Was that before I denounced the concept of private
property, and after I called Suzette Kelo a retard?
I don't give a rat's ass what you think of my political philosophy,
and the fact that you have so much difficulty pigeonholing it into
the categories you'd like to see, I take as a compliment.
|9.29.05 @ 4:43PM|#
Yes, quasibill, the rules would be enforced by the
government.
Democracy is the worse form of government, except for all the
others.
|9.29.05 @ 4:48PM|#
Joe--
According to a Google check, it was bailey.
Wow. I feel like a little kid who's just been told Santa Claus
rapes puppies.
|9.29.05 @ 4:49PM|#
joe-
It's bad form to have 3 consecutive posts if the first post is a
criticism of Hakluyt. Pot, kettle, black, etc. :)
Yeah, I know, not as bad, but it's always better to keep the
highest ground possible.
|9.29.05 @ 4:51PM|#
Thoreau--
At least Joe didn't suggest that somebody do X before embarrassing
himself further.
|9.29.05 @ 6:06PM|#
Wow, M1EK and joe trying to pretend they have hard to pigeonhole
political philosophies in the same thread.
It usually happens on separate threads, and not usually so near to
another thread where they are both pining for Nationalized
Canadian-style healthcare.
M1EK|9.29.05 @ 6:20PM|#
"Wow, M1EK and joe trying to pretend they have hard to
pigeonhole political philosophies in the same thread."
Up yours, jerk.
"It usually happens on separate threads, and not usually so near to
another thread where they are both pining for Nationalized
Canadian-style healthcare."
So Matt Welch could join us in the Democratic Party, then, I guess.
Good for him.
|9.29.05 @ 6:22PM|#
M1EK,
Since you're the one always arguing that we should vote for
Democrats I assume that you are a Democrat. My implication is that
you are a Democrat and that therefor you have a bias towards
Democrats (which you are now all but admitting).
Please do tell me the difference between the corruption of Maxine
Waters and Tom DeLay.
joe,
On several occassions I have made that very same statement and you
have not denied it. That seems to be some sort of pattern of
behavior for you. In a few weeks when I mention that you argued
that we here are both ignored and ridiculed by everyone you'll deny
that too I am sure.
You can ignore me all you want to, but as that is always an empty
threat I won't take your statement seriously.
Was that before I denounced the concept of private
property...
You did denounce it. Then, several posts later I might add, you
claimed that you were merely joking. You're a slippery little
scumbag.
...and after I called Suzette Kelo a retard?
The word you used was "duped" actually. You argued that the IJ had
duped their clients into the particular claim that they had.
|9.29.05 @ 6:28PM|#
M1EK,
Up yours, jerk.
Aww, did your poor widdle feelings get hurt?
thoreau,
...but it's always better to keep the highest ground
possible.
That's never the case with you.
|9.29.05 @ 6:30PM|#
joe,
BTW, your willingness to try to change my claim from "duped" to
"retard" is pretty indicative your debating style.
M1EK|9.29.05 @ 6:33PM|#
"Since you're the one always arguing that we should vote for
Democrats I assume that you are a Democrat. My implication is that
you are a Democrat and that therefor you have a bias towards
Democrats (which you are now all but admitting)."
ALL BUT ADMITTING? In what way, exactly? I'd love to vote for
responsible Republicans, if any still existed around my parts. I
did before.
I love divided government, a la 1992-2000. That's my ideal.
"Please do tell me the difference between the corruption of Maxine
Waters and Tom DeLay. "
Maxine Waters is a loathsome insect who does a hell of a lot of
harm to her constituents, but precious little to anybody else,
since she has no power whatsoever. Tom DeLay is a loathsome insect
with a lot of power who harms his own constituents AND the rest of
the country. I'll go after DeLay first, thanks.
I'd vote against Waters, of course.
|9.29.05 @ 6:34PM|#
Josephus is getting really pissy these days (although the
barbarian Hakluyticus is quite the provacateur).
Let them fight to the death before the plebs!
|9.29.05 @ 7:02PM|#
M1EK,
I'd love to vote for responsible Republicans, if any still
existed around my parts.
You're stupid enough to believe that the Democrats or the
Republicans are redeemable parties. Its the sort of populist
rhetoric I expect out of folks who voted for Perot.
Given what you have written about Waters and DeLay you've given me
no reason to vote for Democrats, since the only difference between
the two appears to be one has more power than other at this
particular time.
|9.29.05 @ 7:13PM|#
I love divided government, a la 1992-2000. That's my
ideal.
Without bogging myself down in the prior tit-for-tat (Did I just
say tit?) I have to agree here. I have come to realize that I was
most happy during a divided government which 'shutdown' over a
balanced budget debate.
I mean, look at what we get with United Government: The Patriot
Act, a war in Iraq, an expanding national debt, a medicare
prescription drug bill, campaign finance reform-- oh the list goes
on.
Paul
|9.29.05 @ 7:29PM|#
M1EK,
The Congress and the Presidency were in the hands of the Democrats
between 1992-1994 (or rather, until January 3rd of 1995).
|9.29.05 @ 7:32PM|#
Without bogging myself down in the prior tit-for-tat (Did I
just say tit?) I have to agree here. I have come to realize that I
was most happy during a divided government which 'shutdown' over a
balanced budget debate.
If you want an excuse to get bogged down, you could point out that
the proximate cause of the divided government was the resounding
rejection of the Clinton health care plan.
Clinton's genius was in recognizing that national mood and riding
along with it.
Republicans took advantage of the mood ... until they gained the
power to utterly ignore it.
|9.29.05 @ 7:33PM|#
M1EK,
I note that you avoid the following request:
Giving us copious examples of why you do such lumping might be
useful though.
|9.29.05 @ 7:50PM|#
Which begs the question, why do Republicans remain in
power?
It sure does.
Today's Cato Commentary
finds David Boaz saying:
In a recent poll, 64 percent of voters said that they prefer smaller government with fewer services and lower taxes, while only 22 percent would rather see a more active government with more services and higher taxes. Federal taxpayers never get a chance to vote on taxes and spending. If they did, we might see a resounding rejection of President Bush's massive increase in the federal budget.
In Congress, I'd guess that Republicans remain in power because --
between election "reform" laws and better and better gerrymandering
-- the incumbants have a stronger hold on their seats than ever
before.
In the Executive, Bush barely won. Twice. If either Gore or Kerry
didn't so obviously suck, we would have a divided government.
|9.29.05 @ 7:56PM|#
Yeah, buncha Hak posts and responses to Hak posts. With about as much actual content as you can usually expect.
|9.29.05 @ 8:00PM|#
joe,
Is that the best you can do? Are you really that pathetic? Well,
yes you are.
|9.29.05 @ 8:04PM|#
Fabius Maximus,
He's always pissy when he gets caught in a lie.
MikeP,
The Democrats have made themselves into today's Whig party;
sidelined, whiny and corrupt.
|9.30.05 @ 12:15AM|#
Hakluyt,
Of course they were always corrupt.
The republicans are not now, nor have they ever been corrup. Right?
Right?!?
|9.30.05 @ 12:21AM|#
Is it just me, or was Billy Ray's last posted comment on the same thread as Gary Gunnels last?
|9.30.05 @ 1:02AM|#
Kris,
I'm not quite sure what sort of alternate universe you are in, but
I am not nor have I ever been a Republican, nor do I favor the
Republican, nor do I view in any less negative light than I do
Democrats. Now, if you can read my comments and come to a different
conclusion then your party-loyalty lenses must be turned up quite
high.
thoreau,
Yes, he's "too reasonable." He accuses Reasons' writers of
something which he can neither demonstrate in the write-up that
informs this thread nor can M1EK demonstrate it in any other
thread. But oh yes, he's reasonable alright. Do get your head out
of your ass and come to grips with reality.
_________________________
This is ultimately the problem with scumbag party hacks of both
major scumbag parties; if you disagree with them they automatically
throw you into the opposing camp.
|9.30.05 @ 8:23AM|#
Well so far total Hak vs. M1EK posts is 10.
Since Hak started fighting with joe and Kris and is trying to start
fighting with thoreau, I only count posts where he yells at
M1EK.
I wrote down some side guesses and were wrong on all of them:
M1EK asserting he is not a Democrat: 3 (actual 1)
Hakluyt telling M1EK he needs to read several books about
something: 4 (not yet)
Hakluyt asserting he is not a GOPer: 2
(actual 7; charges not brought by M1EK)
GOP John jumps in: 1 hour 35 minutes. (did not)
|9.30.05 @ 9:29AM|#
No Jean Gary, it's just the best I'm motivated to do.
"You're a poopyhead, watch while I lie about old threads" is not a
very interesting conversation to take part in.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245