New at Reason

wingnutx|8.24.06 @ 2:29AM|#

I would love to see a larger fisking of this book. I might even read the book now. Used, of course.

|8.24.06 @ 2:53AM|#

This is probably the most mean-spirited book review I have ever seen. Needless to say, I loved it.

|8.24.06 @ 3:10AM|#

This is probably the most mean-spirited book review I have ever seen. Needless to say, I loved it.

Make that two for this opinion. I'll have to go get the book from the library now, can't buy the damn thing....even used.

|8.24.06 @ 3:25AM|#

Cheryl Miller has no idea what I can do with a hard drive.

Warren|8.24.06 @ 3:28AM|#

It�s like cheating on your husband with the pimply IT guy and paying for the hotel room.

OH! no you dihh'nn.
The reviews at Amazon are hitting the same notes with some different perspectives. Seems the 'all problems can be laid at the feet of GWB' angle chafes everyone, except those that LOVE it.

|8.24.06 @ 3:32AM|#

If that's the most mean-spirited book review you've ever read, then hoo boy - you've missed out on a lot of fun. I recall a review of a Tom Clancy book by the junior Buckley that makes this one look like a gentle nuzzling caress... good times.

|8.24.06 @ 3:49AM|#

Wow, what a great book review.

But she seems to forget this relative wealth when she describes the daily life she leads with her partner, Paul.

Partner? Partner? Is that like Tom Hanks in his Oscar acceptance speech thanking his partner, who just happened to be his fucking wife? Christ, he's either a boyfriend, fiance, husband, or "fuck buddy." Partner?

|8.24.06 @ 5:38AM|#

Well reasoned, but please, aren't there more substantial books out there to review? This book sounds like it hardly ascends past coulteresque levels in thoughtfulness or premise.

I often wonder why some book reviews get posted on this site; the intelligence of the contributers is usually clear from their own essays, so I don't know why they choose to pick the easy fights when it comes to book reviews. The best thing about this magazine is that it (usually, or at least often) puts a higher value on original thinking and argument over routine application of ideology.

Next time let's see someone try to tackle some slightly subtler arguments.

|8.24.06 @ 5:38AM|#

Here's another cracking book review:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/books/review/29keillor.html?ex=1296190800&en=f45b7b68925ee277&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

It's Garrison Keillor (who I am guessing a lot of people on this site think's a turd) slating the French Dude with overt chest hair. He does nail him though. Perfectly.

|8.24.06 @ 6:06AM|#

I don't know why they choose to pick the easy fights when it comes to book reviews.

It's more fun. Like beating up a kid with one leg; guaranteed results.

|8.24.06 @ 7:12AM|#

This wasn't a harsh book review. It's nowhere near Matt Taibbi's panning of Tom Friedman's The World Is Flat". Who "shops" for "skiing"? Have you ever gone "shopping" for "cable TV"? I admit it. I'm a bit tired of these pledge books.

|8.24.06 @ 8:35AM|#

My God...that Friedman review was priceless...I wish I'd read it before I bought (and read) the book.

|8.24.06 @ 8:56AM|#

You want to see a "great" review of a Tom Clancy novel, look no farther than here:

http://trac.bookofhook.com/bookofhook/trac.cgi/wiki/TheBearAndTheDragon

|8.24.06 @ 8:58AM|#

"Levine airily insists that necessities in New York are different from those of a �farmer in Bangladesh.� But she seems to forget this relative wealth when she describes the daily life she leads with her partner, Paul. She paints a pitiful picture: This �highly insecure� existence includes two residences (an apartment in Brooklyn and a house in Vermont), flexible work that allows the couple to take off and ski in the afternoon, three cars, a windsurfer, and a healthy diet of such Whole Foods staples as �Thai sweet black rice� and �Mexican huitlacoche fungus.�

Moreover, throughout their ostensibly shopping-free year, the couple expands their Vermont home. (Since they agreed to do so before Levine�s pledge, they figure spending $30,000 on renovations doesn�t count.) Yet Levine assures us that�thanks to �rampaging corporations� and ruthless �GOPpies��they are on the verge of �starv[ing] and freez[ing].� They lack such necessities as a microwave, a hedge trimmer, even a cappuccino maker. Bangladeshi farmer, eat your heart out."

I am sure they have an "I am too poor to vote Republican" bumber sticker on their E320. God I hate liberals. I really do.

|8.24.06 @ 9:22AM|#

Wow, this Miller character is the embodiment of an ideal: "the dumb bitch"

The Wine Commonsewer|8.24.06 @ 9:27AM|#

What an entertaining book review. I loved it. I tend to forget the shallow people exist and that their editors have cataracts. How can you write any of that with a straight face?

Oh and David's quick two sentence soundbite......what a great hook. Who couldn't click through after that?

|8.24.06 @ 9:33AM|#

God I hate liberals. I really do.

John,

Your "Somes idiots are liberals, therefore all liberal are idiots" logic is brilliant.

|8.24.06 @ 9:36AM|#

"Your "Somes idiots are liberals, therefore all liberal are idiots" logic is brilliant"

Dave,

When I meet the liberal who is not an idiot, I will start to question my logic. But thus far, liberals keep telling me that there are some of them out there who aren't idiots, but I have yet to meet one.

|8.24.06 @ 9:38AM|#

TWC,

I'd like to second that. That was a compelling little soundbite! Well done!

|8.24.06 @ 9:39AM|#

Dan T.|8.24.06 @ 9:43AM|#

Actually, the problem with this review is that Miller makes it pretty clear that she's not going to give a fair reading to a book that is "anti-capitialist".

You really can't tell from the review if this is a decent book, since Miller just doesn't like Levine questioning the dogma.

If nothing else, Levine appears to have given up "shopping" (spending money as a recreational activity) as opposed to "not buying anything".

Miller criticizes Levine for her life of luxury, rather stupidly missing the point that one has to come from such a life if they are going to experiment with giving up recreational shopping. That's like reading a book about an alcoholic who stops drinking for a year and complaining that he drank before that!

|8.24.06 @ 9:44AM|#

Lamar,
that book review for the world is flat is awesome!
though i gotta admit, i enjoyed reading the world is flat until page 100 when i decided by free time would be better spent playing xbox. regardless, i like the premise that globalization is badass and cool and hardcore and means lots of dolla dolla bills for consultants.

|8.24.06 @ 9:56AM|#

I'm afraid. I find myself agreeing with John. Plus, it must be just me, but that Matt Taibbi review seemed insipid. Come on, spending all that time differentiating between 'level' and 'flat'? A quick sentence could have done that. I should have kept playing Xbox.

|8.24.06 @ 10:06AM|#

That's like reading a book about an alcoholic who stops drinking for a year and complaining that he drank before that!

It seems to me, although I haven't RTFB, that it would be more like reading a book about an alcoholic who only drinks socially for a year.

|8.24.06 @ 10:08AM|#

Dan,

You'd do well not to bolster John's case. I think Ms. Miller rightly takes Levine to task for bemoaning capitalism while at the same thinking of $55 haircuts as necessities.

Levine shows the classic combination of "everyone makes too much money but me" and "everyone's purchases are stupid except mine" thinking.

Jennifer|8.24.06 @ 10:18AM|#

I remember reading a similar article about some rich yuppies who decided to strike a blow against consumerism by only buying secondhand products (except food, medication and underwear) for a year. I also buy lots of secondhand products, which is easy since I live in a state full of rich women who do things like buy stunningly gorgeous designer outfits, wear them once and then give them to Goodwill, where I come along and snap up that $500 outfit for $10.

But the only reason I am able to do this is because of those wonderful, wasteful consumers who will wear an outfit once and get rid of it, or buy new furniture every year when the styles change, rather than keep these items until they are worn out. So if you make a comfortable life out of other people's castoffs and then criticize wasteful people who pay retail, that strikes me like saying "I am an honest person who would never steal someone else's car stereo. However, if you want to steal a car stereo, I have no qualms about buying it from you for pennies on the dollar."

Besides, if our society wasn't rich enough to blow money on luxuries, we couldn't afford to support people who do things like write books for a living. Put that pen down and pick up some farm tools, dammit!

Dan T.|8.24.06 @ 10:20AM|#

[i]You'd do well not to bolster John's case. I think Ms. Miller rightly takes Levine to task for bemoaning capitalism while at the same thinking of $55 haircuts as necessities.[/i]

Without having read the book myself, it's difficult to ascertain whether or not Levine is really anti-capitialist just because she might point out some of the disadvantages of the system. Either way, it doesn't necessarily follow that getting a haircut is "shopping", and it also seems like part of the point of the book is to determine what is a "necessity" in the life of a modern New Yorker. Sure, one could live without grooming or hygine products and services but it appears that Levine is still trying to function in society.

[i]Levine shows the classic combination of "everyone makes too much money but me"[/i]

At least from the reveiw, I don't see any reason to think she expressed this idea.

[i]and "everyone's purchases are stupid except mine" thinking.[/i]

Huh? I thought the whole point was that Levine was beginning to realize that many of her purchases were stupid and wanted to see if she could get along without them.

Shannon Love|8.24.06 @ 10:22AM|#

...what Levine is really talking about is taste...

I have long since come to the conclusion that primary motivator for people adopting Leftism is the desire for social status. They have adopted a status system in which one's adherence to ideas marks one as a high status person, not ones actual material productivity or value to others.

Shunning mass produced goods is actually a form of conspicuous consumption. In the modern world, low-tech handmade goods are harder and more expensive to get than the equivalent factory made items. Ditto for organic foods. Even those without a lot of disposable income express their status aspirations by such consumption and then pat themselves on the back for making a "sacrifice" for the good of the planet or 3rd world workers.

Levine lives in a sub-culture which hates and reviles those who actually produce the necessities and luxuries of life and lauds those who merely articulate and express. They can't even see such behavior as the exercise in narcissism it is.

Jennifer|8.24.06 @ 10:24AM|#

Sure, one could live without grooming or hygine products and services but it appears that Levine is still trying to function in society.

False dichotomy, Dan. It's not like her only two choices are "pay $55 for a haircut" or "don't get a haircut at all."

Dan T.|8.24.06 @ 10:28AM|#

False dichotomy, Dan. It's not like her only two choices are "pay $55 for a haircut" or "don't get a haircut at all."

That's true, but if the point of her book is to chronicle a year without shopping, what difference does it make how much she pays for haircuts?

|8.24.06 @ 10:30AM|#

It's always disappointing when someone who has previously written a brilliant book (Harmful to Minors) turns out to be total loser in most other respects.

Jennifer|8.24.06 @ 10:34AM|#

but if the point of her book is to chronicle a year without shopping, what difference does it make how much she pays for haircuts?

Because the point was supposed to be not so much giving up shopping as giving up wasteful expenditures. And to talk about horrible wasteful consumerism and then spend four or five times what's necessary for a haircut makes one a hypocrite.

I wouldn't expect her to spend the whole year without washing her hair, either. I won't criticize her for buying a $2 bottle of Suave shampoo, but if she buys one of those $25 salon shampoos I will criticize her, and saying "well, you can't expect her to walk around with dirty hair" completely misses the point.

|8.24.06 @ 10:35AM|#

Now I'm confused, is a $55 haircut considered excessive? Is it even possible to get a cheaper hair cut in Manhattan? I'd throw a house party if my wife came from the hairdresser and told me she only spent $55, and I live in southern Virginia.

|8.24.06 @ 10:40AM|#

Shannon Love writes: "I have long since come to the conclusion that primary motivator for people adopting Leftism is the desire for social status. They have adopted a status system in which one's adherence to ideas marks one as a high status person, not ones actual material productivity or value to others."

It's just as true for conservatives, and especially Republicans. It's just a different set of ideas.

Jennifer|8.24.06 @ 10:40AM|#

Now I'm confused, is a $55 haircut considered excessive? Is it even possible to get a cheaper hair cut in Manhattan?

|8.24.06 @ 10:44AM|#

Mark, I don't even want to think about Garrison Keillor "nailing" some French guy with chest hair.

Dan T.|8.24.06 @ 10:47AM|#

Because the point was supposed to be not so much giving up shopping as giving up wasteful expenditures.

Tough to say without reading the book, but based on other reviews it sounds more she's saying "can I go a year without buying things I don't need", which is not the same thing as saying "can I go a year only buying really cheap stuff".

I wouldn't expect her to spend the whole year without washing her hair, either. I won't criticize her for buying a $2 bottle of Suave shampoo, but if she buys one of those $25 salon shampoos I will criticize her, and saying "well, you can't expect her to walk around with dirty hair" completely misses the point.

But I'd say you're missing the point - the definition of a "necessity" is obviously pretty subjective. But if Levine feels that she needs a $55 haircut (is that really expensive for Manhattan anyway?) then so what?

Both you and Miller seem to be more interested in tarring the author than giving a fair look at what she's writing about.

|8.24.06 @ 11:10AM|#

Dan T., you have got to be kidding. A person who defines an expansion on a second home and a 55 dollar haircut as "neccesities" cannot write a book about going "a year without buying things I don't need" and be taken seriously. To her, neccesities are things most people in the U.S. don't have?

My favorite part of the article is the fact that this affluent creep took out student loans with no intention of paying them. To me that is just stealing, and stealing from working class shlubs who pay taxes and can only dream of the life of second homes, skiing, etc., that this woman takes for granted.

Jennifer|8.24.06 @ 11:13AM|#

it sounds more she's saying "can I go a year without buying things I don't need", which is not the same thing as saying "can I go a year only buying really cheap stuff".

But in her case they're the same thing. I'd agree that shampoo is a necessity in today's society. In that regard, buying $2 shampoo is buying what you need. Buying $25 shampoo is a luxury. Likewise, a haircut is necessary to maintain a proper public appearance. But a $55 haircut is a luxury. For that matter, cars are necessities in most of America, but Porsches are not.

Both you and Miller seem to be more interested in tarring the author than giving a fair look at what she's writing about.

Bullshit. What she's writing about is "I am going to criticize people for buying stuff they don't need, but insofar as my personal needs go, I'm going to revise the definition of "need" to include a lot of overpriced luxuries, and while paying for these overpriced luxuries I will simultaneously praise myself for living such a simple life."

Jennifer|8.24.06 @ 11:13AM|#

it sounds more she's saying "can I go a year without buying things I don't need", which is not the same thing as saying "can I go a year only buying really cheap stuff".

But in her case they're the same thing. I'd agree that shampoo is a necessity in today's society. In that regard, buying $2 shampoo is buying what you need. Buying $25 shampoo is a luxury. Likewise, a haircut is necessary to maintain a proper public appearance. But a $55 haircut is a luxury. For that matter, cars are necessities in most of America, but Porsches are not.

Both you and Miller seem to be more interested in tarring the author than giving a fair look at what she's writing about.

Bullshit. What she's writing about is "I am going to criticize people for buying stuff they don't need, but insofar as my personal needs go, I'm going to revise the definition of "need" to include a lot of overpriced luxuries, and while paying for these overpriced luxuries I will simultaneously praise myself for living such a simple life."

Jennifer|8.24.06 @ 11:13AM|#

it sounds more she's saying "can I go a year without buying things I don't need", which is not the same thing as saying "can I go a year only buying really cheap stuff".

But in her case they're the same thing. I'd agree that shampoo is a necessity in today's society. In that regard, buying $2 shampoo is buying what you need. Buying $25 shampoo is a luxury. Likewise, a haircut is necessary to maintain a proper public appearance. But a $55 haircut is a luxury. For that matter, cars are necessities in most of America, but Porsches are not.

Both you and Miller seem to be more interested in tarring the author than giving a fair look at what she's writing about.

Bullshit. What she's writing about is "I am going to criticize people for buying stuff they don't need, but insofar as my personal needs go, I'm going to revise the definition of "need" to include a lot of overpriced luxuries, and while paying for these overpriced luxuries I will simultaneously praise myself for living such a simple life."

Jennifer|8.24.06 @ 11:13AM|#

it sounds more she's saying "can I go a year without buying things I don't need", which is not the same thing as saying "can I go a year only buying really cheap stuff".

But in her case they're the same thing. I'd agree that shampoo is a necessity in today's society. In that regard, buying $2 shampoo is buying what you need. Buying $25 shampoo is a luxury. Likewise, a haircut is necessary to maintain a proper public appearance. But a $55 haircut is a luxury. For that matter, cars are necessities in most of America, but Porsches are not.

Both you and Miller seem to be more interested in tarring the author than giving a fair look at what she's writing about.

Bullshit. What she's writing about is "I am going to criticize people for buying stuff they don't need, but insofar as my personal needs go, I'm going to revise the definition of "need" to include a lot of overpriced luxuries, and while paying for these overpriced luxuries I will simultaneously praise myself for living such a simple life."

Warren|8.24.06 @ 11:14AM|#

John,
I find it ridiculous to suggest all liberals are idiots. Hillary is the embodiment of limousine liberal, with self-serving policies to match, but however much I detest her, there is no meaningful sense in which she can be tagged as an idiot. I will agree with you that many liberals are idiots and that the non-idiot liberals diminish themselves by embracing them (Al Gore, idiot, insane, or too stupid to be stupid?).

However, why pick on liberals when conservatives are every bit their equals when it comes to idiocy. Is Bush really as stupid as he pretends to be? In everything from stem cells to gay marriage, conservatives demonstrate they take a back seat to no one as proud idiots.

|8.24.06 @ 11:17AM|#

Jennifer, I see your point with that haircut, and I agree that the premise of her book is a bit ridiculous. I wouldn't let Dan T. get to you, I don't believe he believes one word he has ever typed in this forum. I do think he is funny as hell though.

|8.24.06 @ 11:26AM|#

I think this book would make a nice Amazon set with "Crunchy Conservatives," which I read, and which says almost the same thing. There seems to be something in zeitgeist these days about proving onself superior by rejecting certain stores. I'm not all against the idea of being responsible in one's purchases -- I buy organic milk and chicken because I'm concerned about overuse of antibiotics -- but entirely too many people seem to think this act is enough to win them some kind of medal. Also, there is the implied contempt for people who either have no access to the "superior" product or can't afford 'em.

Finally, one thing that really bugged me about Levine's book is that she can do this because she doesn't have kids. Believe me, one's opinion of "unnecessary" spending changes dramatically with the addition of a munchkin. Would she consider birthday presents and parties "unnecessary?" Treats? Music lessons? Soccer?

I really think most non-fiction publishing houses could use a "humility editor" for any book claiming to be a memoir. If the book hangs a halo on the author or her subject, don't publish it.

|8.24.06 @ 12:44PM|#

Things a human being needs:

1. Breathable air
2. Shelter
3. Potable water
4. Fire
5. Food

Everything after that is a luxury. No one needs haircuts or shampoo; in fact, as a woman, she could have gone Crystal Gayle for the year. Starting as she did with a crew cut, she probably would have had a decent, shoulder-length hairstyle by the end.

I wonder what her reaction would have been had someone told her to really cut out the shopping and handed her a rifle, a fishing pole, and some trapping equipment...

Dan T.|8.24.06 @ 12:56PM|#

I once read a book about by an alcoholic about his attempt to stop drinking.

How dare he tell me he can drink but I can't! Why does he think he's so much better than me?

|8.24.06 @ 12:58PM|#

Cheryl has hit the nail on the head--I see this sort of hypocrisy all over Seattle, but especially on Capitol Hill.

Brilliant article . . .

|8.24.06 @ 1:10PM|#

Amanda,

Heh. Better yet, give her a rock and tell her to get cracking.

|8.24.06 @ 1:29PM|#

brilliant article. kudos!

|8.24.06 @ 1:34PM|#

"Everything that would give an IBM human resources director a boner, that's a flattener."

Best line from the flat earth critique.

And, if "shopping" is obtaining something you don't have in exchange for currency of some kind, aren't you shopping every time you pay the electric bill? Pay your mortgage? etc. Silly notion. Too much time on her hands, I say.

Jennifer|8.24.06 @ 1:42PM|#

Dammit, will somebody in the real world please give Dan T. some attention so he doesn't have to try so hard over here? Surely there's some woman in North Carolina willing to fuck him.

With dreck like this book coming out of publishing houses, I'm amazed that publishers don't understand why book sales are down. But I'm very tempted to write Ms. Levine a letter telling her that I was going to buy her book, but I chose instead to follow her wise example and not waste money on non-necessary items.

So I took the book money and used it to buy a fair-trade chocolate bar made from cacao beans hand-picked by Peruvian virgins within the first five minutes after the morning's dew evaporated from off the tree. Designer chocolate is a necessity. And the fact that I only buy necessities proves I'm better than the rest of y'all.

|8.24.06 @ 1:44PM|#

I think this book would make a nice Amazon set with "Crunchy Conservatives," which I read, and which says almost the same thing. There seems to be something in zeitgeist these days about proving onself superior by rejecting certain stores.

Not new at all--older than the republic, actually. It's nothing more than the Puritan "hair shirt" attitude jazzed up slightly for the 21st Century. Righteousness through self-deprivation is a classic Protestant attitude, and especially prevalent in the USA. So the Manhattan yuppie atheist keeps perpetuating the world of John Calvin and the Roundheads without even realizing it. Now *that* would make an interesting book.

Dan T.|8.24.06 @ 2:09PM|#

Jennifer, it seems that you're the one who could use a little tension release...your incredible defensiveness (trust me, not every person who is concerned about the state of the world is motivated by a need to feel superior to you) and lame rehashing of "liberal" stereotypes illustrates this pretty well.

Jennifer|8.24.06 @ 2:42PM|#

Okay, Dan.

By the way--you do know I'm a liberal myself, right? Nah. Too nuanced for the coarse mesh of your brain to handle.

Larry A|8.24.06 @ 2:44PM|#

Believe me, one's opinion of "unnecessary" spending changes dramatically with the addition of a munchkin. Would she consider birthday presents and parties "unnecessary?" Treats? Music lessons? Soccer?

When she found out that the easiest and most economical way a working, middle class parent can throw a kid's birthday party is at McDonalds I bet her head would explode.

Levine's no-shopping pledge has all the anti-capitalist bona fides of Adbusters' 'non-brand' brand, Blackspot, or, better yet, one of Citibank's 'Live Richly' ads. Spiky haircut? $55. Organic coffee beans? $7 a pound. Excoriating everyone else for overconsumption? Priceless.

You left out PBS, whose "commercial-free" programs are sponsored by <Business Name>, and "people like you" through two-day fundraising telethons.

Warren|8.24.06 @ 3:29PM|#

That would be people like me Larry. And I'm sure you meant to say two-week telethons. Frankly, I respect PBS, Adbusters, and Citibank far more than that sanctimonious twit.

|8.24.06 @ 3:32PM|#

Now *that* would make an interesting book.

You have your mission ChrisO. Send us some draft copies.

|8.24.06 @ 4:19PM|#

Finally, one thing that really bugged me about Levine's book is that she can do this because she doesn't have kids. Believe me, one's opinion of "unnecessary" spending changes dramatically with the addition of a munchkin. Would she consider birthday presents and parties "unnecessary?" Treats? Music lessons? Soccer?

Actually Karen, there's a female author over at Slate who's so uptight (i.e. fucked up) about these sorts of things that she won't let her young son have birthday presents. Even those given to him by friends have to be exchanged for pre-approved books.

I really hope that kid burns her house down.

|8.24.06 @ 5:06PM|#

You have your mission ChrisO. Send us some draft copies.

Ha! The amount of recreational drugs it would take to make me want to write such a book would probably kill me before said book was finished.

|8.24.06 @ 5:13PM|#

Now I'm confused, is a $55 haircut considered excessive? Is it even possible to get a cheaper hair cut in Manhattan?

Easily. You just have to deal with *gasp* Mexicans.

Paul|8.24.06 @ 6:15PM|#

Who "shops" for "skiing"? Have you ever gone "shopping" for "cable TV"? I admit it. I'm a bit tired of these pledge books.

dude, it's a metaphor for consumerism. Hmm, Now I'm picking the easy fight... Never mind.

Paul|8.24.06 @ 6:19PM|#

Who "shops" for "skiing"? Have you ever gone "shopping" for "cable TV"? I admit it. I'm a bit tired of these pledge books.

dude, it's a metaphor for consumerism. Hmm, Now I'm picking the easy fight... Never mind.

fyodor|8.24.06 @ 6:23PM|#

the definition of a "necessity" is obviously pretty subjective. But if Levine feels that she needs a $55 haircut (is that really expensive for Manhattan anyway?) then so what?

Well said.

I only wish that those who would criticize the "excesses" of others would have the sense and courtesy to apply your logic as stated above to others and not just to themselves.

|8.24.06 @ 7:11PM|#

"dude, it's a metaphor for consumerism. Hmm, Now I'm picking the easy fight... Never mind."

I'm sure I'm being an ass here, but how does one consume skiing? I get the point you're making, but my point is that materialism and consumerism deal with the idea that buying things can make you happier. Does anybody doubt that a vacation can make you happier? reply to this

Reason.com

New at Reason

wingnutx|8.24.06 @ 2:29AM|#

Warren|8.24.06 @ 3:28AM|#

The Wine Commonsewer|8.24.06 @ 9:27AM|#

Dan T.|8.24.06 @ 9:43AM|#

Jennifer|8.24.06 @ 10:18AM|#

Dan T.|8.24.06 @ 10:20AM|#

Shannon Love|8.24.06 @ 10:22AM|#

Jennifer|8.24.06 @ 10:24AM|#

Dan T.|8.24.06 @ 10:28AM|#

Jennifer|8.24.06 @ 10:34AM|#

Jennifer|8.24.06 @ 10:40AM|#

Dan T.|8.24.06 @ 10:47AM|#

Jennifer|8.24.06 @ 11:13AM|#

Jennifer|8.24.06 @ 11:13AM|#

Jennifer|8.24.06 @ 11:13AM|#

Jennifer|8.24.06 @ 11:13AM|#

Warren|8.24.06 @ 11:14AM|#

Dan T.|8.24.06 @ 12:56PM|#

Jennifer|8.24.06 @ 1:42PM|#

Dan T.|8.24.06 @ 2:09PM|#

Jennifer|8.24.06 @ 2:42PM|#

Larry A|8.24.06 @ 2:44PM|#

Warren|8.24.06 @ 3:29PM|#

Paul|8.24.06 @ 6:15PM|#

Paul|8.24.06 @ 6:19PM|#

fyodor|8.24.06 @ 6:23PM|#

Larry A|8.25.06 @ 12:58PM|#

Leave a Comment

Most Popular Stories

Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey

advertisements

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices: