Sadly, Not Even Close

Julian Sanchez | June 2, 2006

The folks at Sadly, No respond to Jacob's kvetch that they seem unable to read his columns accurately by demonstrating that they can't read my blog posts accurately either. They mention (as just one piece of evidence we're secret GOP shills) "Reason's endorsement" of Samuel Alito. Except, funnily enough, they don't directly link the blog post they're referring to, but to yet another post elsewhere describing my "lengthy defense" of Alito, with the witty and original suggestion that libertarians are just Republicans who smoke pot. (I'm never sure whether the appropriate response to that is a wry pun invoking the consonance between "Dem" and "Dumb," in the tradition of Oscar Wilde, or a volley of feces, in the tradition of the howler monkey.) Presumably that's because, had they linked the post in question, readers might have noticed my "endorsement" begins with the statement "I haven't got a verdict one way or another on Alito yet" (he'd just been nominated) and just proceeds to pick apart one set of anti-Alito talking points I thought were overblown. Worse, someone might've scrolled up from that post and seen the two the following day where I added that there were good reasons to be disturbed by his Fourth Amendment record and linked Andrew Napolitano's negative assessment. If that's supposed to pass as an endorsement, it's a pretty crappy one.

I don't know if I spot any general pattern in what other folk here said about Altio, which I recall as being pretty mixed. Matt Welch blasted him for being too enamored of executive power; Jacob sounded a more tentatively optimistic note. But apparently, this is how political categories work now: Anyone who criticizes George Bush is, ipso facto, a "liberal"; anyone who fails to intuit by direct apprehension of a Platonic form the intrinsic evil of a Bush nominee is carrying water for the Republicans. And ever since Alberto Gonzales only half-blocked that vial of acid hurled at my face, I've been a crazed Bush hater and sycophant simultaneously. Which is fine, provided I get to wear one of those funky suits.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

|6.2.06 @ 2:17PM|#

i am telling you man you got to bring up the ferrets otherwise the left just won't get it.

Ferrets or cocain vending machines

|6.2.06 @ 2:23PM|#

(I'm never sure whether the appropriate response to that is a wry pun invoking the consonance between "Dem" and "Dumb," in the tradition of Oscar Wilde, or a volley of feces, in the tradition of the howler monkey.)

I think we all know the answer to that.

Primary sources|6.2.06 @ 2:51PM|#

It's too bad, that as easy as it can be with the instant transmission of information, that so few people bother to check me out.

|6.2.06 @ 3:06PM|#

Are you surprised? They're liberals, of course they're lazy.

|6.2.06 @ 3:07PM|#

All this will accomplish is that the folks who don't understand what Mr. Sanchez believes will dismiss him as not knowing what he believes. If your philosophy can't be color-coded, you're obviously just confused.

|6.2.06 @ 3:12PM|#

I think my favorite dismissive, lazy criticism of libertarianism is the ol'

I used to believe in libertarianism...in 8th grade. Then I grew up.

followed by a heapin' helpin' of fresh-n-funky Ayn Rand cracks, and the ubiquitous "libertarians are just republicans who like pot".

|6.2.06 @ 3:20PM|#

^ Sullum, my mistake.

From that blog:

The real joke about libertarianism, as well-intentioned as its roots may be, is that libertarians would have to employ statist measures to prevent non-libertarians from organising socially, for the purpose�*gasp*�of forming a state.

Hence, the conundrum�and the ideological vacuity that libertarianism (at heart, primitivism) really is.

How could we possibly respond to such undeniable logic.

|6.2.06 @ 3:28PM|#

Some more one-liners:
Calling oneself a Libertarian is the political analogue of saying, "But I'm really bisexual."
Libertarianism is the political party for people who don't like people.
a libertarian is what a republican calls himself when he wants to get laid.

But we have a savior!
Hi, I'm joe. You'll probably see my comments in the in the Hit & Run comments threads...
Anyway, I've been observing the species for a long time, and I think you're way off to conflate Reasonoids with Republicans, or accuse them of carrying water for Bush...
[T]o accuse Jacob Sullum, who keeps writing books with the theme "End the drug war because drugs never hurt nobody" of being an authoritarian conservative is just plain silly.

No, I have no purpose other than to copy-and-paste comments from that site.

|6.2.06 @ 3:36PM|#

Libertarians are Republicans who like pot...0r Democrats who like guns.

|6.2.06 @ 3:38PM|#

dammit now i have to like joe...i blame you zach!

anyway kudos for Joe for sticking up for us.

|6.2.06 @ 3:40PM|#

Arguing with people like those at "Sadly, No!" is a sheer waste of time/energy. They've constructed their libertarian strawman, and are happy to attack it while blissfully ignoring any evidence that conflicts with their own mischaracterizations of libertarian political philosophy.

|6.2.06 @ 3:43PM|#

Joshua- Joe's apologia is nice, but he also refers to us as "silly" and preens about how he singlehandedly is showing us the light of...well, whatever it is Joe believes.

|6.2.06 @ 3:45PM|#

Libertarians are Republicans who like pot...0r Democrats who like guns.

I prefer "Democrats that have taken Econ courses."

|6.2.06 @ 3:49PM|#

Joe is now not just advocating a condescending nanny-state, but actually performing as one. Ugh. It's like your sister coming to help you in a fight on the playground.

Warren|6.2.06 @ 3:51PM|#

We�re getting a lot of traffic from Reason�s Hit & Run blog in response to...

OK if they can notice an uptick in their traffic from our window-shopping aren't they too insignificant to bother with in the first place?

|6.2.06 @ 3:51PM|#

Hence, the conundrum�and the ideological vacuity that libertarianism (at heart, primitivism) really is.

I'm not spending the time or contributing the hit to go over to the website, but please tell me the people behind it are college students. There is no excuse for anyone no longer in college to write sentences like that. Except for the grown ups at Kos and Huffpo, I guess.

And just how exactly is libertarianism related to primitivism, whatever that is? Talk about your ideological vacuity.

|6.2.06 @ 3:53PM|#

and people wonder why the democratic party can't win

|6.2.06 @ 3:56PM|#

dammit now i have to like joe...i blame you zach!

I knew he was alright from the first time he made me look stupid. But yeah, don't get swept off your feet just yet. It is sort of funny seeing him talk about our "intellectual inconsistency". There are a plenty of extremely consistent libertarians, and they tend to be the most extreme.

|6.2.06 @ 3:57PM|#

|6.2.06 @ 4:02PM|#

Ian,

the overwhelming feeling that I got from that comment thread is that they are just plain fucking lazy. They need to feel comfortable, so they lay out the same old tired shit. At least republicans, for all their evilness, seem to be a little more adaptive. That's how this whole thing started---Travis G. was just plain lazy, and didn't bother to actually research Sullum or Reason. Now he's backpedaling, and cherry-picking for little tidbits around Reason that, taken alone, show less than 100% contempt for The Right.

The best part is when a libertarian commenter laid out his reasons for being libertarian (pretty good, too), and one of the Dem commenters replied that none of that matters, because, well, he has some friends who are libertarian, and their reasons for being libertarian are because they like guns and hate taxes...and, so, he's "stuck" with that definition.

That's the laziness I'm talking about.

Warren|6.2.06 @ 4:03PM|#

joe said,

� Certainly, there are the Reynoldses and Volokhs who latch onto the term so they can be Republicans and still stand a chance of having sex once or twice a decade, but the Reasonoids are the real deal. �

WTF joe? Do you really think libertarians get more sex than Republicans? Now is you had said "�and still enjoy having sex one or twice a decade"

|6.2.06 @ 4:05PM|#

Joe is now not just advocating a condescending nanny-state, but actually performing as one. Ugh. It's like your sister coming to help you in a fight on the playground.

yeah after i actually went to the site and read the whole post rather then just the quotes zach gave i have regained my siething hatered...

all is once again well in hit and run land.

|6.2.06 @ 4:11PM|#

WTF joe? Do you really think libertarians get more sex than Republicans? Now is you had said "�and still enjoy having sex one or twice a decade"

dude why do you think he hangs around here..not only does he think libertarians get more sex then republicans but he thinks they get more sex them democrats.

|6.2.06 @ 4:15PM|#

From Travis' rambling pseudo-explanation:

"Sullum associates himself with the libertarian party, which is built on fundamental distrust of the government. I'll admit that he's retained at least some sense of principle when it comes to Bush administration abuses of power or violation of conservative principles -- which not all self-identified libertarians can claim. But a sort of guilt-by-association nags Sullum"

No, Travis, it nags YOU, because it makes it easier for you to make jokes about him.

|6.2.06 @ 4:23PM|#

One doesn't have to always agree with Joe to appreciate his showing up every now and then.

There is nothing more boring than a forum full of people shouting "ME TOO!"

uncle sam|6.2.06 @ 4:25PM|#

seething...it's seething hatred.

|6.2.06 @ 4:31PM|#

When Duke was running for president in the Doonesbury strip as a Libertarian he explained:

Democrats are for pot and promiscuity

Republicans are for guns and tobacco

Libertarians are for all four plus pornography

Seemed a pretty succint description to me ;-)

|6.2.06 @ 4:35PM|#

It's good to have joe here to fight with, but it is lame to have him trying to explain libertarians to those pinkos, like he's Dr. Livingstone explaining the bizarre customs of Negros ("they are not quite as savage as you may imagine, milord") to the Royal Society back in London.

|6.2.06 @ 4:38PM|#

We would all do the same for him, I'm sure.

|6.2.06 @ 4:40PM|#

What do you expect from an elitist/statist like joe, than to speaking condescendingly about "others", whatever their stripe?

But I definitely like having joe around. An echo chamber isn't really conducive to actually learning something new.

One doesn't have to always agree with Joe to appreciate his showing up every now and then.

There is nothing more boring than a forum full of people shouting "ME TOO!"

Sure, but let's not go so far as to imply he is saving H&R from that*. There is no lack of heated debate around here even when he's not around. I mean even among libertarians, or those sympathetic to libertarian ideas, the differences of opinion on here are considerable. Those differences certainly seem far greater than those of the typical liberal or conservative echo chambers.

* I'm not saying you are implying that mk, by the way, just that it is sometimes suggested that absent joe or JMJ everyone on here would agree and it would be boring which is, of course, absurd.

|6.2.06 @ 4:42PM|#

I'm not saying you are implying that mk, by the way, just that it is sometimes suggested that absent joe or JMJ everyone on here would agree and it would be boring which is, of course, absurd.

I agree completely.

...God, what a crappy commenter I am.

|6.2.06 @ 4:43PM|#

Brian,
Agreed.

I would, however, like to point out that we are all sufferering from the lack of a good declinist since Gaius stopped frequenting the forum. Does anyone have Chalmers Johnson's e-mail?

|6.2.06 @ 4:45PM|#

...I mean, it's halfway through the day and noone has even mentioned that this is the 1551st anniversary of the sacking of Rome.

|6.2.06 @ 4:46PM|#

and people wonder why the democratic party can't win

I think Ian got this right...i mean they have no idea who thier friends are...at least the republicans are smart enough to keep thier mouths shut when they know they have a ally on an issue.

For god sake Reason agrees with them on Bush over reaching his constitutional powers and they are still pissed about it.

|6.2.06 @ 4:50PM|#

One last comment on Joe...it wouldn't be "seething hatred" if he was simply stupid like the sadly no crowd.

|6.2.06 @ 4:53PM|#

Wow, the comments you guys wrote make those kids seem like...well, kids!

Good job!

|6.2.06 @ 4:59PM|#

Never posted on Reason before, but the blistering libertarian response at Sadly No merits my approval. There's only one word for a smackdown like that: PWNED

|6.2.06 @ 5:03PM|#

I think Ian got this right...i mean they have no idea who thier friends are...at least the republicans are smart enough to keep thier mouths shut when they know they have a ally on an issue.

One last comment on Joe...it wouldn't be "seething hatred" if he was simply stupid like the sadly no crowd.

????
????????????????

|6.2.06 @ 5:17PM|#

Ok, you got me zach.

But in my defense that last comment is a compliment to Joe's intelligance.

The buttholes even yanked my post on the original thread giving a link to Jacob's H&R post.

That's quite pathetic.

|6.2.06 @ 5:30PM|#

As far as Sullum goes, I gotta say that he's one of my favorite writers at Reason. When it comes to debunking junk science, Sullum is the guy to do it.

Notice that when I praised Reason for debunking junk science I mentioned the guy on the hallucinogens beat, rather than somebody from another beat. Jacob, I suggest you share whatever it is that you're smoking with the rest of the staff.

Robert|6.2.06 @ 5:48PM|#

Heh...they probably think "For Your Own Good" (re recreational drugs in general) was disingenuous cover for a pro-tobacco agenda.

|6.2.06 @ 5:52PM|#

Jesus, they deleted every comment i made on their board~!

And i didnt even say anything *mean*!

JG

|6.2.06 @ 5:58PM|#

They let me post at least.
I wasn't exactly kindly to them...

Warren|6.2.06 @ 6:11PM|#

GILMORE,
Your last comment stating that all your previous comments had been deleted, is still there at the time of this comment.

All my comments are still there, and while I kept it PG, I was jabbing my thumb in what I thought looked most like an eye.

Those punks are so lightweight. It was fun being able bitchslap em. We totally demonstrated that H&R style snark is the snarkiest snark whatever snarked. Special kudos to Jesse Walker who totally represented. Burning Man on fire.

|6.2.06 @ 6:12PM|#

"Sexy Sadie said,

June 2, 2006 at 11:51 pm

�You were lazy. Your backpedaling, obfuscating, grasping-for-straws reply is, well, pathetic.�

Yes, let�s talk about grasping at straws, Ev. You claim that most of us here have not read through the Reason articles. Now how on Earth could you possibly know that? Are you related to Miss Cleo?"

I-ro-neee!

|6.2.06 @ 6:26PM|#

I'm just pissed that they didn't come over here to try to crap on our Cheerios.

|6.2.06 @ 6:40PM|#

Sadly, No! have had blog dust ups with Dean Esmay, Little Green Footballs, Outside the Tent and Three Bulls!

this is from the "sadly no!" about page...aparantly this is what they do...get into fights with other blogs...what is most suprising is how bad they are at it.

Maybe the "a" list hasn't got back from memorial vacation yet.

Why?

It'd just be like having a bunch of Jersey McClones.

|6.2.06 @ 6:44PM|#

they just deleted all my comments. :(

|6.2.06 @ 7:09PM|#

Was is serendipity that we got linked to both Sadly, No! and Friday Fun Link's netizen caricatures on the same day?

Warren|6.2.06 @ 7:19PM|#

Oddly, they've left my comments in place (thus far) but seem to have barred me from making anymore.

To wit:
Sorry, but your comment has been flagged by the spam filter running on this blog: this might be an error, in which case all apologies. Your comment will be presented to the blog admin who will be able to restore it immediately.
You may want to contact the blog admin via e-mail to notify him.

|6.2.06 @ 7:38PM|#

the witty and original suggestion that libertarians are just Republicans who smoke pot

How did this ever become a stereotype? I know a lot of Republicans that smoke pot who aren't Libertarians. But then, they're also intellectually dishonest bastards.

|6.2.06 @ 7:47PM|#

you are gone now warren...i got the same message right before they deleted me...sad really

|6.2.06 @ 7:50PM|#

I thought i would preserve jesse's comment before it gets deleted...it is just to good to let go...i am sorry i did not have time to get warren's.

#

Jesse Walker said,

June 2, 2006 at 10:29 pm

There is just no way anyone who had actually looked at the last six years of Reason could write that with a straight face.

Sure they can, Julian. You just have to remember that �very, very few hard-edged dissents from the Bush agenda� is a code phrase for �tons of sharp-edged criticism of Bush and his agenda,� �precious little notice of the evisceration of civil liberties� is code for �extensive coverage of the evisceration of civil liberties, with much more criticism than has been offered by most leading Democratic politicians,� and �much euphoria over the tax cuts� is code for �some references here and there to the tax cuts, some of them generally positive, but with an understanding that they don�t mean much without spending restraint.�

Warren|6.2.06 @ 7:58PM|#

DOH!
Fucking pansies. I hope they at least have the Zeus-damned common decency to leave Julian Sanchez and Jesse Walker's comments. Looks like some of the faithful are still tilting at their windmill. Nothing but cheapshots, and sore losers too. Well it was fun for a while.

|6.2.06 @ 7:58PM|#

Opps that wasn't the one i wanted...it was good but here is the one i wanted

#

Jesse said,

June 2, 2006 at 11:25 pm

So you don�t have disdain for �stupid people.� You just respond to criticisms with comments like �What are you? Nine?� OK.

If you�ve �read enough� libertarian literature �to come to the conclusion that it�dismisses the fact that humans are, fundamentally, social animals,� you haven�t read much libertarian literature. The fact that we�re social animals is one of the most basic assumptions in the work of F.A. Hayek, Herbert Spencer, Adam Smith, and other not-so-obscure libertarian and classical liberal writers. One thinker revered among libertarians, Albert Jay Nock, practically frames his whole political worldview around the distinction between �social power� and �state power.� There may be some teenage Randites and moss-eating survivalists out there who think society is a myth, but most libertarian thought is all about social cooperation.

Man, I hope that my well thought out condemnation of government owned land using Government pollution as a rallying point doesn't sound too "conservative" to them. I guess I will expect it to be deleted soon.

Warren|6.2.06 @ 8:23PM|#

joshua,
Good work. I don't know if those are the same Jesse though. Myself, I like the former because it's got that Hit and Run flavor.

|6.2.06 @ 8:34PM|#

I think thier squirrels just gave up the ghost. All was humming along and now it is, well, dead. Maybe one of the kids spilled some beer on the server or something. I mean, it is Friday right and what college kid wouldn't be having a kegger?

|6.2.06 @ 9:18PM|#

I'm not close to the most libertarian person around here and like others am careful about saying small-l libertarian (or I "lean" libertarian) to slow confusion, but with enemies like this I'm thinking about a tatto on my forehead with the word libertarian.

As a plus - Apparently I can then get laid more and smoke pot.

|6.2.06 @ 9:24PM|#

Oh - and this from the site:

...Where they get this bizarre notion is a mystery. I think it has a lot to do with affluence.

I get laid more, smoke pot all day, and I'm rich.

Damn I got it good.

uncle sam|6.2.06 @ 10:20PM|#

Will I ever goback to Sadly, No? Happily, no.

Warren|6.2.06 @ 10:36PM|#

Now they're claiming squirrels ate our posts.

|6.2.06 @ 10:48PM|#

Here's what I said to them:

thoreau said,

June 3, 2006 at 4:44 am

Hi everybody. I�m a regular commenter on Hit and Run. I come at libertarianism from more of a leftish slant.

The thing is, you guys are arguing with just one type of libertarian. Behind every stereotype there is indeed an anecdote. But for every anecdote there are dozens of other anecdotes that don�t fit the stereotype.

Look at a typical long thread on Hit and Run, and you can probably find a few comments that fit the stereotypes you�re arguing with. You can also find a whole bunch of people jumping all over the person who makes those arguments. We aren�t a monolithic bloc.

Anyway, as to Reason in general and Jacob Sullum in particular: Reason has been one of Bush�s best critics. Maybe not quite as incessant as more knee-jerk critics, but persistent and absolutely razor-sharp. And Jacob Sullum is one of the sharpest people writing for Reason. Not to mention a HUGE critic of the Bush administration.

uncle sam|6.2.06 @ 11:31PM|#

They are like the zombies in various flesh-eating movies. Unless you act as rabid as they do, they will attack you.

|6.2.06 @ 11:56PM|#

I've been meandering left on my own over the course of the last 6 years. Damn I'd swear I'd be probably by a Dem - if they weren't so god damned abrasive to everybody.

|6.3.06 @ 12:07AM|#

"I'm never sure whether the appropriate response to that is a wry pun invoking the consonance between "Dem" and "Dumb," in the tradition of Oscar Wilde..."

You do Oscar Wilde a great disservice by suggesting that such a sophomoric pun is in his tradition. You'll have to do better than that to counter the chrarge that Libertarians are just Republicans who smoke pot. Now that is funny and sadly true. On the upside, libertarians are unknown outside miniscule libertarian circles, so you're harmless. Light up.

|6.3.06 @ 12:24AM|#

Here is my favorite from you H&R folks.

"If any of you actually are open-minded enough to look at the evidence and decide for yourselves, join us over at H&R for a few days. Even hard-core leftists whose aim seems to be to insult us are usually treated as if their arguments are worth listening to. Who knows, you might find your preconceptions were incorrect. You might even discover how much we agree."

While Linguist is one of my favorite H&R posters... and I believe what she says is true for many here...I doubt a few days would reveal this trend due to the noise of the faithful that find questions an insult. It seems that the Sadly No! critique applies aptly to those that it applies to, and misses out on the fact that it only applies narrowly... as do many of the comments here about them...Seems there were a few reasoned comments on their thread... amidst the noise of the faithful... But I am one of the abrasive outsiders that gets accused of trolling and intellectual dishonesty when I ask questions... So what do I know...

For what it is worth... to confuse Libertarians with Republicans is like confusing Democrats with the left. It shows a lack of discrimination.

|6.3.06 @ 12:29AM|#

hey if joe and mainstreamman wish to argue that we have sunk to their level then fine...but know full well we sunk to thier level and kicked thier collective asses.

:)

|6.3.06 @ 12:32AM|#

note when i say "thier" i mean the sadly no comment monkey board, not joe and mainstream

|6.3.06 @ 12:48AM|#

MSM, the way you get treated has far more to do with the fact that you're an arrogant jerk than with the content of any questions you might have.

uncle sam|6.3.06 @ 12:50AM|#

Sincerely asked questions from a desire to understand a different viewpoint are rather rare.
People who eschew immoderate reaction are even rarer.

|6.3.06 @ 12:56AM|#

Joshua:

Do you suffer from dyslexia or just a poor education?

roy edroso|6.3.06 @ 1:09AM|#

...yet another post elsewhere describing my "lengthy defense" of Alito...

It was over 1200 words long. In blog years, that's an epic novel.

...with the witty and original suggestion that libertarians are just Republicans who smoke pot.

No, I referred to "Republicans With Weed." I assume real libertarians would hold their weed in escrow until such time as the American people rise up against their statist oppressors.

The quote on which I based my comment -- "If some employer decides it doesn't want to hire people named Sanchez, I think it ought to be able to legally -- though I'd hope for it to be swiftly punished by public opinion" -- remains ridiculous.

|6.3.06 @ 1:22AM|#

Do you suffer from dyslexia or just a poor education?

I am sure both...but at least i know that Oscar Wilde was all about the bad pun...at least "the importance of being ernest" is all about the bad pun...

In fact it is all about not being earnest the adverb rather then being Earnest the name..get it? Friggin hilarity ensues from the crazy antics of a guy who lies cheats and steals all so a woman thinks his name is Earnest...and then get this at the end of the whole story it turns out his name really is Earnest...such high humor is above reproch of course.

by the way my stunning spelling and grammer come to you thanks to a Union run public school system.

|6.3.06 @ 1:24AM|#

"You do Oscar Wilde a great disservice by suggesting that such a sophomoric pun is in his tradition."

Umm, yeah, that was the point. I was trying to underscore how hackneyed and imbecilic this kind of slogan slinging was.

|6.3.06 @ 1:26AM|#

err ajective not adverb

|6.3.06 @ 1:29AM|#

Umm, yeah, that was the point. I was trying to underscore how hackneyed and imbecilic this kind of slogan slinging was.

crap.

|6.3.06 @ 1:37AM|#

hey now that i have put my foot in my mouth can i ask one of those manstreamman Sincerely asked questions:

What does the "g" in glibertarian stand for?

roy edroso|6.3.06 @ 1:43AM|#

What does the "g" in glibertarian stand for?

Glenn.

Rick H.|6.3.06 @ 1:47AM|#

It is poignant for me to read Roy Edroso joining in the smack attack upon my beloved Hit & Run. I find Roy's Alicublog site to contain some of the most consistently well-written lefty snark around. He can be weaned from this irrational dislike of libertarianism - I just know he can!

Please, Roy, go aim that laser back at the social conservatives again.

This hatin' has got me all tore up inside.

Rick H.|6.3.06 @ 1:48AM|#

roy edroso|6.3.06 @ 1:53AM|#

He can be weaned from this irrational dislike of libertarianism - I just know he can!

I love libertarians -- it's people I can't stand!

("Linus and Lucy Theme" plays as I shuffle out of frame)

Rick H.|6.3.06 @ 1:54AM|#

I still hate the server.

|6.3.06 @ 2:06AM|#

Alright...
I got Mediageek to call me a name again.
He's sooooo cool.

|6.3.06 @ 2:08AM|#

Meh. I think that Travis at Sadly, No is probably trying to get a rise out of the Reason guys that publish at Townhall. Yeah he's being glib(ertaian), but he's still much kinder on his reviews than he is to the Malkin/Coulter Limbaugh group.

Brad and Seb at Sadly, No would probably have a hell of a lot in common with most of the commenters here.

Though, if their censoring comments then I could be wrong....

|6.3.06 @ 2:09AM|#

the bastards still won't allow me to post after they deleted all my previous posts..so i will post it here

In a truly free-market economy, whatever would prevent gas/power companies from ignoring rural and sparsely-populated areas? Indeed, in a free market context, it makes the most sense to completely neglect these areas, as to maximize profit you need the biggest potential customer base and the smallest installation and maintanence costs possible (in other words, a big city).

last i checked it was the left complaining about sprawl and bithing about energy efficiancey and alternative energy...my suggestion to you is go out to the county and find one of those old wooden wind generators and then wonder why they stopped making them...then wonder if electricty wasn't put here by the the new deal what how advanced those wind generators would be today.

on a side note there was some similarly stupid argument about the interstate highway system being a public good...again sprawl, death of the railroad, death of public transportation, and a huge oil subsity...

|6.3.06 @ 2:19AM|#

update -

apparently they replaced *some* of the previous comments that had been deleted. But you can see they're replaced for effect more than substance. The rain of rebuttals to the guy 'derelict' were snipped and it looks more now as though his comment went half unchallenged in some respects...at least none of the links to specific things rebutting his claim, or the overwhelming cry of WTF??

i dont get these guys 'editing' a comments board. it's one thing if its a policy for 'taste' (no 'cumdrinking asianniggerspicwopjewwhore!')... but they apparently edit the board for actual *substance*.

Thats just, i dont know... really gay. in the adjective as derogative sense.

Hot air

JG

Warren|6.3.06 @ 2:40AM|#

My comments have been tossed down the memory hole and I am barred from making any more. It really ages my cheese too. Their jr. high detention class cheap-shots are just begging to be chastised via my highbrow wit.

Well at least I'm still welcome here amongst the other lepers.

|6.3.06 @ 2:47AM|#

I've seen the software they're using arbitrarily drop comments on other blogs.

For example, using this link, I can see eight comments posted by Warren.

|6.3.06 @ 2:52AM|#

I've seen the software they're using arbitrarily drop comments on other blogs.

For example, using this link, I see eight comments posted by Warren.

RETARDO|6.3.06 @ 3:14AM|#

Propertarian Friends:

We didn't kill your comments purposely! It just happened as I've explained and explained, and if you think it was selective, then why did tirgrismus' anti-libertarian comments (who is one of our lefty sympathetic regulars) also get removed while "Yaphet Kotto"'s, who came from here and really snarked us, remain?

We never delete comments on purpose, even nasty ones, so long as they dont a)contain private personal info or b)advocate or threaten murder or physical assualt. And to my knowledge we've never had a problem with those things before. Gavin told me that as far as he knew, no S,N contributor has ever purposely shitcanned a comment.

We just installed word press a week or so ago. Apparently we dont have the bugs out of it. No malicious censorship intended, ok?

|6.3.06 @ 3:33AM|#

The comments have returned

i cant help feel slightly suspecting of how things expugated were so narrowly targeted at a fairly few comments... but so it goes. like it matters! I dont see a whole lot of minds meeting in productive conversation... sad that labels have become substitutes for engagement.

JG

|6.3.06 @ 4:22AM|#

Maybe "RETARDO" is what they call their server over there. Hell, it's how I now refer to my old 200 mega-hertz Gateway I was using up until this year. Of course, I never dared call it that when I was still using it. :-)

Jason Sonenshein|6.3.06 @ 8:54AM|#

I've been meandering left on my own over the course of the last 6 years. Damn I'd swear I'd be probably by a Dem - if they weren't so god damned abrasive to everybody.

Ironchef, you might want to give these folks a try.

|6.3.06 @ 9:35AM|#

Surely Hit and Run posters can believe that another blog might have problems with its comments software.

|6.3.06 @ 10:26AM|#

I read both H & R and Sadly, No! pretty much every day. I think there's a lot in common between the two sites, especially Bradrocket's stuff. Travis is a bit more extreme, but I think he's the one who just last week quit his job, so he's a bit more testy than usual. (The fact that I both know this and care at all demonstrates what a seriously flawed person I am.) What's so odd about this is that he took up the cudgels in response to Jacob's really quite mild rebuke. Generally all those guys save their ire for the orbit-of-Pluto wingers, not ordinary conservatives. Maybe a weekend will cool everybody off.

That said, the Sadly No! server squirrels are even slower than the H & R ones. We need to send all the electronic rodents some peanuts, soon.

|6.3.06 @ 11:04AM|#

The beauty of being a libertarian is failing to see a need to convert other people. Oh, sure, we think we should, but we're generally too busy living our own lives and find manipulating other people too distasteful to give it a real effort.

Incidentally, if "libertarian" means distrust of government and desire to live a relatively unrestricted life, well, I think we're less a minority that the hardcore left and right want to believe. Pre-9/11, the small-l circle was arguably beginning to make serious inroads--even Nick at one point declared political victory, I believe. Oh, well.

|6.3.06 @ 11:31AM|#

"...like he's Dr. Livingstone explaining the bizarre customs of Negros ("they are not quite as savage as you may imagine, milord") to the Royal Society back in London."

Quite, old bean.

"One last comment on Joe...it wouldn't be "seething hatred" if he was simply stupid like the sadly no crowd." Awwwwwww.....that's sweet. He complimented my intelligance.

|6.3.06 @ 1:34PM|#

When I read that Reason is carrying water for the Bush administration, which is objectively and obviously false to anyone who reads the blog or the magazine on a regular basis, I can't help but think about the basis for such an ignorant reading of clear English prose.

Everyone looks like a shill in a winner takes all election format. One person is writing and one person is reading, each with a set of core issues. My suspicion is that the failure to advocate for the other coalition is perceived to be the same as carrying water because "Oh my God, do they want no abortions?" or some such.

I am one of the folks among the commentariat most likely to be confused with a conservative, especially in the foreign policy arena, but you'd be hard pressed to paint me as an administration flack. Jacob Sullum? Give me a break.

A lot of the Reason folks aired their political thoughts during the election. Very, very few pulled the lever for this president.

Warren|6.3.06 @ 1:57PM|#

Jason,
Unfortunately the S,N! thread has gotten away from the festering bilge-water it started with (still festering, just different water).

I suspect this will be my last comment there.

Robert|6.3.06 @ 2:05PM|#

We have here an illustration of the folly of those who've wanted to pitch libertarianism more leftward, as supposedly Inquiry magazine was an attempt to. No matter how much libertarians in the USA (it may be different elsewhere) try to run away from the "right" and court the "left", they will be perceived by both "left" and "right" as part of the "right". Therefore attempts to court the "left" just weaken support for libertarians while gaining no friends.

That's not to say libertarians shouldn't lay it on the line whether their opinions & analyses are individually more favorable to "liberals" or "conservatives". I'm sure Jacob wasn't trying to slant things. I'm just saying that however it comes out, the perceived overall affinity of libertarians is with "conservatives".

Whether this is because of the priorities hypothesized by the person who wrote above of his experience with Democrats & Republicans in the family, I don't know.

uncle sam|6.3.06 @ 2:50PM|#

I'm just saying that however it comes out, the perceived overall affinity of libertarians is with "conservatives".

It's because, above all else, libertarians support freer markets, which some conservative actually do and many say they do.

The bipartisan tribalism of left and right have made them not only unfit to critique the libertarian model, but equally unfit to critique each other. They have devolved to US v. THEM

|6.3.06 @ 3:46PM|#

Quote of the day

"The hive mind should be thought of as a tool. Empowering the collective does not empower individuals � just the reverse is true. There can be useful feedback loops set up between individuals and the hive mind, but the hive mind is too chaotic to be fed back into itself."-- Jaron Lanier

From
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier06/lanier06_index.html

|6.4.06 @ 5:05PM|#

Why do I always arrive at these situations too late to post anything original? What can I say, I've been reading the Sadly, No! thread for what seems like forever, and I'm less than halfway through, and it's absolutely ludicrous what kind of bashing SN is getting. THEN I read on and find out the admins there have taken the liberty (pun intended?) of deleting posts. I can't wait to see how the second half of the thread turns out...

P.S. Huge props to everyone from H&R who went over and made them look like fools.

|6.4.06 @ 5:10PM|#

...Though to be fair I believe them when they say they aren't intentionally deleting posts. Also, I have read dozens of posts by the authors whose posts are purported to be deleted...

|6.5.06 @ 1:44PM|#

I suspect that the deleted posts have to do with the anti-spam catcher that is linked at the bottom of the page. I think they just have it set a little to sensitive (What? Posted 3 times in this thread today? Yer outta here!!). It just seemed that the most prolific posters were the ones getting dropped, not necessarily the most scathing. But they do need to get software that automatically closes tags upon hitting submit.

</ $.02 (inflation adjusted) >

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements