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
Booty and the Bailout
Columnist Ron Hart writes about Somali pirates and the Dems and Reps on the bailout:
Republicans seem poised to not vote on a bailout for the poorly managed automobile industry. They find it much easier to adhere to their principles when they are not actually in power. Letting a non-viable business fail, so that it can be replaced by a more efficient one, is simple economic Darwinism. To sum up, Republicans do not want Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest taught to our kids in school, but they do like it applied to business.
Democrats are torn on the bailout for the American automakers. On one hand, they want to feather the beds of the unions, who count on them making their jobs just costly enough that the company they work for can stay solvent long enough for elder union members to retire. On the other hand, they need someone to pay their $18 million a year Viagra bills well into their golden years. In return, Democrats want Detroit to make smaller cars so their limousines can get around them in Washington, D.C., traffic on their way to a private jet that will whisk them off to a global warming summit.
|12.5.08 @ 11:28AM|#
To sum up, Republicans do not want Darwin's theory of
survival of the fittest taught to our kids in school, but they do
like it applied to business.
I'm sorry but no. The Republicans were the ones that hit the faucet
with a sledge hammer and started the federal financial
hemorrhaging. It's only since they all became lame ducks that they
want to give the finger to the ones that gave them the boot.
ed|12.5.08 @ 11:29AM|#
on their way to a private jet that will whisk them
[Dems] off to a global warming summit
Not one of the Detroit bigwigs had the balls to challenge their
inquisitors on the subject of their private jet
transportation choices. Begging makes one timid.
Mad Max|12.5.08 @ 11:38AM|#
From the linked column:
"Then they will apply for, and get, a U.S. Congressional
taxpayer-funded bailout. Arrrgh!"
I'm afraid Ron Hart
flunked Pirate 101:
'Why talk like a pirate - and how . . .
'Arrr! - This one is often confused with arrrgh, which is of course
the sound you make when you sit on a belaying pin. "Arrr!" can
mean, variously, "yes," "I agree," "I'm happy," "I'm enjoying this
beer," "My team is going to win it all," "I saw that television
show, it sucked!" and "That was a clever remark you or I just
made." And those are just a few of the myriad possibilities of
Arrr!'
school marm|12.5.08 @ 11:40AM|#
Pirate ABCs
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q ARRRRRRRRR S T U V W X Y Z
|12.5.08 @ 11:48AM|#
"I'm sorry but no. The Republicans were the ones that hit the
faucet with a sledge hammer and started the federal financial
hemorrhaging. It's only since they all became lame ducks that they
want to give the finger to the ones that gave them the boot."
The Republicans haven't controlled Congress for two years. The Dems
have done nothing to stop spending. It was a Democratic Congress
that gave Paulson his $700 billion. They could have said no and
there would have been nothing Bush could do about it. I suppose the
Whigs were big spenders to. How long do the Dems have to be in
charge before someone at Reason holds them responsible for
spending?
|12.5.08 @ 11:50AM|#
Well, you know what they say! Easy come, easy go!
jess
http://www.privacy.es.tc
|12.5.08 @ 11:54AM|#
I love the UN order to the pirates to cease and desist. Yeah that will show them. We have been dealing with pirates for 100s of years. You hang them on the high seas. Since governments won't do that, we have pirates again. If we bring them back to Europe or the US they will get a trial and can apply for asylum. We could end the pirate problem in about a month if we just had any will.
|12.5.08 @ 11:57AM|#
On the plus side, this increase in the level of piracy will at least lessen the effects of global warming.
Mike M.|12.5.08 @ 12:05PM|#
The Republicans haven't controlled Congress for two years.
The Dems have done nothing to stop spending. It was a Democratic
Congress that gave Paulson his $700 billion.
Forget it; the crybaby democrats who are taking full control of the
government in a few more weeks will still be blaming republicans
every step of the way even as they continue to run the deficit up
to a trillion dollars or more next year.
Taking responsibility just isn't in their platform.
|12.5.08 @ 12:07PM|#
Am I the only one who thinks that column was written after a
fortnight of singing bawdy songs and telling dirty lies over a
barrel of cheap rum? Was this column supposed to be largely
incoherent?
As much as I wish we could place the blame squarely on Democrats,
this was a good old fashioned, bipartisan, pound-you-in-the-ass
fucking with blame a' plenty to go all around.
rhywun|12.5.08 @ 12:09PM|#
Republicans [...] like [Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest] applied to business
I mean, that is just so ridiculously laughable.
|12.5.08 @ 12:18PM|#
I like this line.
The young Somali pirates are said to be drunk and on cocaine as
they run rampant, and both Obama and Bush have been mum on the
matter. Perhaps they are fearful of sounding hypocritical since
that is the way both spent their formative years.
|12.5.08 @ 12:26PM|#
"Republicans [...] like [Darwin's theory of survival of the
fittest] applied to business
I mean, that is just so ridiculously laughable."
Insofar as they are voting agains the Detroit bailout they do. The
question is do they get any credit for being against it or do
Libertarians bang their rattles and scream, you aren't pure
enough!! Who wants the bailout and who doesnt? The ones who support
it, Republican or Democrat, ought to be criticized. The ones
against it ought to get some credit for being so even if you think
they are against it for the wrong reasons whatever those are.
Arrrrr|12.5.08 @ 12:33PM|#
What do we do with a drunken sailor?
What do we do with a drunken sailor?
Tie'em to the mast and cornhole him later
congress|12.5.08 @ 12:37PM|#
what we do with the responsible taxpayer?
what do we do with the responsible tax payer?
Tie him to our debts and cornhole him forever . . .
rhywun|12.5.08 @ 12:45PM|#
The ones against it ought to get some credit for being so even if you think they are against it for the wrong reasons whatever those are.
Fine. Then let's stop reducing it to partisan bickering. Hart's
pretending that only Democrats want to bail out their buddies,
which is patently ridiculous.
SIV|12.5.08 @ 12:59PM|#
Hart's pretending that only Democrats want to bail out their
buddies, which is patently ridiculous.
Democrats heavily favored the bank bailout while Republicans
heavily opposed.I assume the auto bailout will be even more
partisanly lopsided.
|12.5.08 @ 1:01PM|#
The Republicans haven't controlled Congress for two years.
Really?? Then what was all this fuss about a "filibuster proof"
majority? If the Republicans were actually holding to their
supposed principles of freer-markets and smaller government this
bailout simply wouldn't have occurred.
In other words John, no one is NOT blaming the Dems because we all
KNOW they are the party of spending and economic
idiocy. What we are also doing is blaming the Republicans for not
being the check valve on it like they claim to be.
See: Hypocrisy
You point to me one reason blog post or article
holding up the Dems as a party of small government and I will
concede that your argument isn't a strawman. Until then, you are
trying blame reason for pointing out what is truly
a Republican failing to abide by their principles.
|12.5.08 @ 1:05PM|#
Darwin's theory had nothing to do with survival of the fittest (that's a social Darwinist term from decades after Darwin's own death). Also, natural selection and sexual selection are necessary for the plausibility of evolution, but not sufficient. ie, one can believe in natural selection and still not believe in evolution.
rhywun|12.5.08 @ 1:10PM|#
Democrats heavily favored the bank bailout while Republicans heavily opposed.
In the first vote--the one that got rejected--one-third of
Republicans voted *for* the measure. But keep your partisan
blinders on if that makes you happy.
|12.5.08 @ 1:11PM|#
SIV | December 5, 2008, 12:59pm | #
Democrats heavily favored the bank bailout while Republicans heavily opposed.I assume the auto bailout will be even more partisanly lopsided.
I call bullshit.
Senate Makeup:
49 Dem : 49 Rep: 2 Ind
Senate Vote:
75:25 in favor.
Breakdown of Nays: 15 Rep:9 Dem:1 Ind (Sanders)
Mike Laursen|12.5.08 @ 1:22PM|#
What I want to know is how pirates got away with stealing an entire supertanker the other day. How can you hide something like that?
Ravac|12.5.08 @ 1:23PM|#
I'd expect John or joe to be complaining about Hart's opinion
piece since he's clearly taking shots at both sides. It may be
written poorly, and perhaps not completely honest in the sniping,
but I rather enjoyed it.
If you see partisanship in everything, perhaps you're a
partisan.
|12.5.08 @ 1:24PM|#
...after a fortnight of singing bawdy songs and telling dirty lies over a barrel of cheap rum?
And sodomy, don't forget the sodomy.
|12.5.08 @ 1:28PM|#
Mike Laursen
I don't think the tanker's hidden. It's just that with the crew
being held hostage noone wants to try any kind of rescue attempt
that could get them killed.
|12.5.08 @ 1:40PM|#
Ravac,
I think it was a funny article for what it is worth.
Kwix,
I didn't realize that many Republicans rolled. That is just sad. I
stand corrected.
SIV|12.5.08 @ 1:41PM|#
House final vote:
Yeas / Nays
Democratic 172 63
Republican 91 108
OK try Democrats heavily favored while a majority of Republicans
opposed.
|12.5.08 @ 1:51PM|#
SIV,
It takes both Chambers of Congress to pass a bill and the majority
of Senate Republicans voted for it.
Face the facts, if the Republicans were doing their job of
"shrinking government" it wouldn't have happened, Democrats be
damned.
But they didn't, and despite some Dems jumping to the 'Nay' side of
the vote it still passed like grandpa's Christmas gas. Not so
silent and just as deadly.
|12.5.08 @ 1:53PM|#
You have to be shitting me.
In fact, the U.N. does have the deterrent of Article 110 of the
U.N.'s Law of the Sea Convention, which forbids ships to fire on
pirates. Instead, and I am not making this up, they are first
required to board their ship to politely inquire of the pirates
whether they are, in fact, pirates. I am pretty sure the "law" has
them identify the pirates by their eye patches and always woefully
undersized treasure chests that never seem to be able to hold all
of their gold.
|12.5.08 @ 2:00PM|#
I want to be a Somali Pirate! Arrghh!
Dude they are probably Muslims...
Which means you have to get up at 5am to pray and oh yeah....YOU
CAN"T DRINK!
seriously Somali pirates are the worst pirate gig around.
|12.5.08 @ 2:14PM|#
joshua corning | December 5, 2008, 1:53pm | #
You have to be shitting me.
In fact, the U.N. does have the deterrent of Article 110 of the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Convention, which forbids ships to fire on pirates. Instead, and I am not making this up, they are first required to board their ship to politely inquire of the pirates whether they are, in fact, pirates.
Yes, he is shitting you.
Article 110 reads:
Article110
Right of visit
1. Except where acts of interference derive from powers conferred by treaty, a warship which encounters on the high seas a foreign ship, other than a ship entitled to complete immunity in accordance with articles 95 and 96, is not justified in boarding it unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting that:
(a) the ship is engaged in piracy;
(b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade;
(c) the ship is engaged in unauthorized broadcasting and the flag State of the warship has jurisdiction under article 109;
(d) the ship is without nationality; or
(e) though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship.
2. In the cases provided for in paragraph 1, the warship may proceed to verify the ship's right to fly its flag. To this end, it may send a boat under the command of an officer to the suspected ship. If suspicion remains after the documents have been checked, it may proceed to a further examination on board the ship, which must be carried out with all possible consideration.
3. If the suspicions prove to be unfounded, and provided that the ship boarded has not committed any act justifying them, it shall be compensated for any loss or damage that may have been sustained.
4. These provisions apply mutatis mutandis to military aircraft.
5. These provisions also apply to any other duly authorized ships or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service.
It addresses nothing other than the right of a ship on the high seas to be unmolested by foreign warships without probable cause and does not "forbid firing upon a vessel". More importantly, it explicitly gives the warship rights to board and inspect another vessel if it is suspected of piracy, or even flying the wrong flag. If the pirates were to fire at said ship, I suspect that rules of engagement would take precedent but I don't have time to read UN regulations all day.
|12.5.08 @ 2:53PM|#
Mike Laursen
To add to what I said, in spite of all the pious statements issued
by various politicians against piracy the tanker is still
considered the owners respsonsibility.
I suspect that there is little political will to fight piracy since
no leader sees a political prize in the same way as on that would
come from say fighting domestic street crime. There are no voters
interested. Piracy is something that happens to rich Greek ship
ownwers and the asian crews on their ships.
In the end a ransom will be negotiated and paid. If it ever gets to
the point that the cost of ransoms starts to exceed the potential
cost of taking military action against the pirates things might
change.
It also occurs to me that if ships cannot avoid sailing in these
waters it might be worthwhile setting up some kind of convoy
system.
|12.5.08 @ 2:55PM|#
There was once a rumor that Chuck Norris was beaten by
pirates.
That Rumor is a lie.
The rumor was reportedly spread by Chuch Norris himself to lure
pirates into fighting him and thus meeting their doom.
Pirates are not known to be very smart.
Mike Laursen|12.5.08 @ 3:00PM|#
Which means you have to get up at 5am to pray and oh
yeah....YOU CAN"T DRINK!
I wouldn't assume these are the most halal guys in the world.
|12.5.08 @ 3:20PM|#
The 9/11 asswipes went to a titty bar and drank on 9/10.
A friend of mind traded a six-pack of crappy beer for an ounce of
hash in Pakistan. He had to ask a total of one (1) cab drivers to
make the deal.
Muslims drink and "good Christian girls" fuck. Not all of 'em, but
enough.
Mike Laursen|12.5.08 @ 3:29PM|#
I was gonna answer because you make an ass out of u and me, but J sub D's answer is better.
WillieT|12.5.08 @ 4:08PM|#
Hart is one of the funniest libertarian writers working today. He is right about the UN Law on this. He works well with facts intermixed with humor. He certainly makes valid points.
|12.5.08 @ 4:17PM|#
Which means you have to get up at 5am to pray and oh
yeah....YOU CAN"T DRINK!
seriously Somali pirates are the worst pirate gig
around.
Actually the article states that they are drunk and high on coke
while engaging in piracy.
The real downside is that the outfits are not at all sexy. No
tricorn hats. No leather boots. You don't even get to wear BDUs and
berets like any self-respecting paramilitary outfit.
LuLU|12.5.08 @ 4:23PM|#
Agreed, the smartest guy writing op/ed humor today. He is a big hit here in NC.
Lawless|12.6.08 @ 9:57AM|#
All the bad guys don't drink. Hilter, Bin Laden, Bill
Clinton.
As Hart pointed out in a column, "Do you know why Hitler did not
drink Tequila?--it just made him mean."
Garmon|12.6.08 @ 10:01AM|#
Here is a funny column Hart wrote about Thanksgiving:
http://www.newsherald.com/articles/family_69917___article.html/year_live.html?orderby=TimeStampAscending&oncommentsPage=1&showRecommendedOnly=0#slComments
He is damn good.
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