Reason Morning Links: Mortgage Cramdowns, Pork Crackdowns, Dinosaur Playgrounds

• David Souter will retire at the end of the Supreme Court's current term.

• Cramdowns go down.

• Joe Biden goes off-message.

• Swine flu fuels religious persecution in Egypt.

• Disgruntled Dutchman tries to assassinate royal family, kills five onlookers instead.

• Rescued sea captain calls for arming ship crews.

• An ABC News/Washington Post poll shows support going up for gay marriage, gun rights, legalized immigrants, decriminalized pot, and normalized relations with Cuba. Public opinion isn't as libertarian when it comes to torture, CO2, and border controls.

• Baptists and bootleggers make Texas energy policy.

• A school district tries to go into the pizza business.

• Did dinosaurs survive the Cretaceous extinctions?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    David Souter will retire at the end of the Supreme Court's current term.

    Looks like Michelle is going to get the pay-off that eluded Hitlery.

  • Nikola T||

    Obama's view of the court:

    Somewhat opaquely, Obama, a constitutional law lecturer, has said that the single most important qualification his appointments must possess is empathy for those who are less fortunate

    Oh great... How about we just pick someone who upholds the constitution regardless of who is involved?

  • Lester Hunt||

    The news one Capt. Phillips: Late last night on TV his view was reported as "arming the crews is not the answer." I guess those guys are reluctant to event report views that they disagree with.

  • Nikola T||

    Maybe Obama will put Biden on the Court. Kills two birds with one stone.

  • von Laue||

    "Disgruntled Dutchman tries to assassinate royal family" link goes to something else.

  • High Every Body||

    Disgruntled Dutchman tries to assassinate royal family, kills five onlookers instead.

    The coverup has begun! Link goes to the pirate sory.

  • ||

    Souter was George H W Bush's biggest mistake.

  • Jesse Walker||

    Link fixed. Thanks.

  • ||

    Cramdown link:

    Commenting on the whole bailout scam?


    "There was a lot of fear-mongering," said Andrew Jakabovics, associate director for housing and economics at the Center for American Progress in Washington. "The banks put on a good show, saying, 'Hey, if you force us to take more losses, we're going to go out of business.'"

  • Cabeza De Vaca||

    "Souter was George H W Bush's biggest mistake."

    No his biggest mistake was not pulling out when W was concieved.

  • Nikola T||

    An ABC News/Washington Post poll shows support going up for gay marriage, gun rights, legalized immigrants, decriminalized pot, and normalized relations with Cuba. Public opinion isn't as libertarian when it comes to torture, CO2, and border controls.

    I see all of these polls as positives. People are becoming more pragmatic. Even the "border controls" question asks are we doing enough to stop the flow of ILLEGAL immigration. Of course people say no. If we make it easier to immigrate legally, then we can stop the flow of illegal immigration.

    The CO2 question is just framed the wrong way. Ask em if they want to pay for it, most will say no.

  • High Every Body||

    Link fixed. Thanks.

    Coverup over. The dogged persuit of regular people to demand the truth has prevailed!

  • ||

    Justice William Jefferson Clinton. The first black Supreme Court justice.

  • Abdul||

    Justice William Jefferson Clinton. The first black Supreme Court justice.

    Nooooo! They tried to nominate another black dude with a questionable sexual history back in the 80's and it turned out pretty badly.

  • ||

    pssst...ProL....Thurgood Marshall....

    But yeah, I get your drift. And it terrifies me! Can you imagine all of the questioning of parties with that wagging finger?

  • Abdul||

    Joe Biden goes off-message

    Isn't Biden just an uglier, more liberal Sarah Palin?

  • Warty||

    Cramdown

    Man, Scissorfight rules.

  • MNG||

    If one accepts that every major scientific professional organization has not gone collectively mad or joined a cabal intent on ruling/destroying the world and that their findings on global warming are instead reflective of a correct assessment of available data, then taking steps, even those using coercion, to remedy this problem is no different in principle than using coercion to stop somone from dumping pollutants into the river that flows on your land and from which you drink from, and thus a libertarian doesn't have to oppose such.

    Libertarians have no more reason to be opposed to the science on this issue than they have to be opposed to findings that people are prone to violence (thus making a government coercive program, the police, more necessary) and no more reason to oppose coercion to address it than opposing the coercion involved in nuisance/tresspass law.

  • Hugh Akston||

    "We have an inherent right to self-defense in international waters," said Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va.

    Once we're back on land, though, where no one would dream of stealing our property or forcing us to act against our will, we have a duty to turn those weapons over to the proper authorities. For safe keeping.

  • the innominate one||

    Did dinosaurs survive the Cretaceous extinctions?

    Scientists might have been wrong about something! See, evolution IS a myth!

  • High Every Body||

    Once we're back on land, though, where no one would dream of stealing our property or forcing us to act against our will, we have a duty to turn those weapons over to the proper authorities. For safe keeping.

    And since he is a proper authority he got his back when it was illegally transported around the District and into federal office building.

  • ||

    Abdul-

    The 80s? Didn't the first black supreme court justice retire in June of 1991 with his successor's salacious sensationalized sexual escapades, real(thing) and imagined, hawked and heralded on the Hill several months later?

  • robc||

    MNG,

    Why would scientific studies even be necessary? I can oppose dumping on my land and use the police to stop it, even if it improves my land?

    In other words, whether or not global warming/cooling/fluctuation is real or not does not affect the underlying legal issue.

  • High Every Body||

    YEA! MNG is here to dazzle us with his big giant talking points memorization skills so we can all lay down for the coming goose-stepping overlords!

  • ||

    Is there any chance Obama will nominate one who is NOT AN IVY GRAD?

  • ||

    libertymike,

    There's always the Sorbonne and Oxford to pull from.

  • robc||

    There is a very legitimate libertarian position that all emissions should be banned. Own a car? Contain all the emissions and dispose of them on your own land. Own cows? Ditto with their methane.

    From a pure position, this is reasonable under strict property rights, pollutants enter my property, thus I can have them absolutely restricted.

    Cap and trade, carbon offsets, etc, etc, are obviously not necessary to do this.

    Is this the best definition of property rights possible though? Seems kind of unrealistic, and hence, another solution is necessary. And for that, we turn to nobel laureate Ronald Coase.

    Oh, and for my last words on this topic, for now:
    Fuck Arthur Cecil Pigou.

  • High Every Body||

    Is there any chance Obama will nominate one who is NOT AN IVY GRAD?

    Depends on where Bill Ayres went. I'm too lazy to look it up right now.

  • ||

    High Every Body-

    You are stranded on a deserted island with MNG and TAO. Everybody has enough food and water. However, MNG has managed to gather all the marijuana and refuses to share it with either you or TAO.

    What do you do?

  • Brandon||

    Effective control of carbon emissions requires the government approve or disapprove of every carbon-emiting activity one might undertake, and approve or disapprove of every carbon-emiting product or service one might purchase. And do the same in India and China.

    That's not a police force to prevent trespassing. That's a totalitarian state.

  • High Every Body||

    There is a very legitimate libertarian position that all emissions should be banned. Own a car? Contain all the emissions and dispose of them on your own land.

    You mean disposal is not part of the toll on privatized roads? I belive this should be disclosed in advance.

  • High Every Body||

    libertymike,

    Shoot her. And I don't even smoke weed, that is not the issue.

  • ||

    Sugar Free-

    I would add Duke, Northwestern and Standford. Give me Eureka College.

  • ||

    CO2ophobes won't be happy until SWAT teams shut down every backyard BBQ in this country.

    Liberals and conservatives both don't care if there's a boot on a neck, they only concern themselves with whose boot and whose neck.

  • Fluffy||

    If one accepts that every major scientific professional organization has not gone collectively mad or joined a cabal intent on ruling/destroying the world and that their findings on global warming are instead reflective of a correct assessment of available data, then taking steps, even those using coercion, to remedy this problem is no different in principle than using coercion to stop somone from dumping pollutants into the river that flows on your land and from which you drink from, and thus a libertarian doesn't have to oppose such.

    I agree with this, MNG.

    Oh, I have a few small problems with it - for example, it presupposes that persons who realize losses because the climate changes had a reasonable expectation that the climate would stay static, and a right therefore to employ coercion to try to hold the climate in place, and all of those same climate scientists would readily concede that the notion of a static climate is rubbish. But let's leave that question to the side for a moment, and say for the sake of argument that we all agree that AGW exists and justifies government intervention.

    That still seems to leave us with some additional quandaries, such as: How do we craft a solution that absolutely satisfies the requirement that all citizens be equal before the law? And can we justifiably employ coercion in the absence of a complete assurance [from those same scientific experts] that our actions will make any difference? Because as far as I know, the scientific consensus on AGW is: "Is it happening?" "Yes, definitely." "Can we stop it if we do 'X'?" "We really don't know." And if "X" involves coercion, you kinda sorta have to know.

  • ||

    the single most important qualification his appointments must possess is empathy for those who are less fortunate

    Not experience, knowledge, acumen, ability. Nope, according to Obama, the ideal SCOTUS Justice is Oprah.

    "Souter was George H W Bush's biggest mistake."

    I would say his biggest mistake was not finishing off Saddam when he had the chance.

    Justice William Jefferson Clinton.

    The first disbarred Supreme Court Justice. The hearings would be solid gold.

  • Mike Laursen||

    Did dinosaurs survive the Cretaceous extinctions?

    Yes. They're called birds.

  • High Every Body||

    Fluffy,

    In order to satisfy MNG and her beer hall buddies we must change the law, so everybody will be equal and pure.

  • High Every Body||

    The first disbarred Supreme Court Justice.

    Would he really be? Deserves more research. Will get right on that as soon as I stop destroying the planet ;)

  • ||

    beer hall buddies

    godwin?

  • High Every Body||

    domo,

    She godwin's every threat with her presence.

  • Jesse Walker||

    MNG and others: The pollsters' question about carbon didn't ask about the science of climate change, nor did it inquire about the general principle of stopping pollution. It asked about federal regulation as a remedy. While there are libertarians who support such an approach, I think it's safe to say that they tend to see that position as an exception rather than an extension to their libertarianism.

  • Cabeza De Vaca||

    Mr. Nice Guy is a she?

  • Kreel Sarloo||

    The regulatory spiral can be traced back to Enron, which in 1999 spearheaded a provision in the state electricity restructuring law (Senate Bill 7, signed by governor George W. Bush) establishing a statewide renewable-energy mandate. Enron's lobbyists had the special interest of Enron Wind Company, which is now part of General Electric, in mind.



    OK, that's why Kenny-boy gave all that campaign cash to Shrub.

    His mistake, of course, was to not give more to Al to get the president that Enron really needed to survive and prosper.

  • High Every Body||

    While there are liberCosmotarians who support such an approach, I think it's safe to say that they tend to see that position as an exception rather than an extension to their libertarianism.

    Fixed. My service to the community an all that.

  • High Every Body||

    Cabeza De Vaca,

    Yes, but calling her a lady is much too much of a stretch.

  • ||

    The pollsters' question about carbon didn't ask about the science of climate change

    It was implied; it's always implicit in any question about global warming, because everybody* knows there is a consensus.

    *Everybody who isn't some sort of evil rapacious fiend, that is.

  • ||

    JW,

    Yes, and there's Clarence Thomas, also reputed to be a black person.

    In any case, I was kidding all around. Even with Democratarama, nominating and confirming a disbarred attorney would be a dangerous move.

  • ||

    There is a very legitimate libertarian position that all emissions should be banned.

    Oh, I disagree, certainly as it applies to CO2. The wafting of molecules from your neighbor's land over yours is not a nuisance or a trespass unless such molecules violate some property right of yours. I don't believe you are entitled to a given climate on your property, or to a given level of CO2 on your property.

    Seeing as any incremental CO2 that your neighbor sends your way actually benefits any plants on your property, I don't think it can properly be termed a nuisance under any theory.

  • ||

    Clarence Thomas is BLACK?!?

  • ||

    -A school district tries to go into the pizza business.-

    We'll buy a $720,000 Pizzamatic, spend $2.2 million to build space for it in the central kitchen

    Quick, Mister President, give these people MOOORE MONNAAAYY!

  • MNG||

    Fluffy
    I realize many here will think that the threat doesn't exist or isn't sufficiently confirmed as unusual (I'll go with the consensus of experts over that if you don't mind), and if we can get that far then of course there will be disagreement over what method will best address the problem (and this depends on what you value in determining what "best" deals with it, so if you like liberty then of course the method that gives you some sufficient level of dealing with it and retains the most liberty should be sought, perhaps that is what robc is getting at), but my statement is simply IF there is AGW, IF it will have the consequences for mankind that some say it will if not addressed and IF the only sufficient way to deal with it involves some coercion at the federal level (Jesse), then a libertarian should be no more opposed to this than using coercion to stop folks from producing noxious gases (like High Every Body for example) that enter onto your land.

    Also, seems High is still mad from me slapping him around until he tucked tail and ran the other day. Don't take it personally High, I deal with most morons I know that way...Now you can go back to your amazing level of witty insult (MNG is a girl!).

  • ||

    Clarence Thomas is BLACK?!?

    "Conservativism" cancels blackness; whitewashes your soul, as it were, so, no.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "I realize many here will think that the threat doesn't exist or isn't sufficiently confirmed as unusual (I'll go with the consensus of experts over that if you don't mind), "

    Ha!

    You aren't even capable of proving that there IS a consensus of experts.

    In fact, you aren't capable of proving who is and isn't an "expert" either.

  • High Every Body||

    Wait, when I emit CO2 I am feeding plants. Hopefully the brighter road owners will provide discounts for higher CO and CO2 emitting vehicles for the hanging gardens lining the roads.

    Vertical integration and all of that.

  • robc||

    The wafting of molecules from your neighbor's land over yours is not a nuisance or a trespass unless such molecules violate some property right of yours.

    This was my point. Under an uber-extreme view of property rights, the molecules are trespassing and it is the polluters fault. Even though they cause no damage.

    Obviously (or I hope it is obvious), I find this view to be silly. The solution is Coasian bargaining, which assigns the property rights in such a way as to minimize transaction costs (the transaction costs in the uber-example would be very, very high). Not sure exactly what that solution ends up being but...

    so if you like liberty then of course the method that gives you some sufficient level of dealing with it and retains the most liberty should be sought, perhaps that is what robc is getting at

    ...sort of, but my point was, it doesnt depend on whether or not AGW is real or not. The pollution is still occurring either way. The fact that it may or may not be warming the Earth has **zero** to do with the law.

    Trespassing laws dont depend on whether or not the trespasser damages my lawn. You know, barefoot pedestrians can cross the property, but spiked golf shoe wearing woud be highly illegal. That isnt the way the law works.

    I have no idea if this is all tying coherently together. Just a bunch of possible tenuously at best related thoughts in my head.

  • High Every Body||

    Also, seems High is still mad from me slapping him around until he tucked tail and ran the other day. Don't take it personally High, I deal with most morons I know that way...Now you can go back to your amazing level of witty insult (MNG is a girl!).

    Hey, babydoll, you sure as shit did not slap me around. Not sure what acid you are on but there might be a good market for it if we ever become truly free.

  • ||

    "IF there is AGW, IF it will have the consequences for mankind that some say it will if not addressed and IF the only sufficient way to deal with it involves some coercion at the federal level (Jesse), then a libertarian should be no more opposed to this than using coercion to stop folks from producing noxious gases"

    Sure is a lot of "ifs".

  • ||

    "The wafting of molecules from your neighbor's land over yours is not a nuisance or a trespass unless such molecules violate some property right of yours. I don't believe you are entitled to a given climate on your property, or to a given level of CO2 on your property."

    If it is my property, shouldn't I be the one who determines what noxious fumes I want to exclude? Isn't the whole point of private property the right to exclude?

  • ||

    robc beat me to it.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "...sort of, but my point was, it doesnt depend on whether or not AGW is real or not. The pollution is still occurring either way."

    Not really.

    If AGW isn't real, then CO2 isn't "pollution" to begin with.

  • Jesse Walker||

    MNG: Action to stop a poison gas from entering your land or lungs can be justified on ordinary libertarian grounds (the sanctity of your person and property). Action to stop a certain level of CO2 from altering the entire atmosphere is harder to frame in a libertarian way. (I have seen some efforts to come up with common-law remedies for climate change, such as Jonathan Adler's thought experiment about people in countries threatened by rising sea levels suing wealthier nations. Whatever you think of those ideas, they don't amount to "federal regulation.")

  • ||

    but my statement is simply IF there is AGW, IF it will have the consequences for mankind that some say it will if not addressed and IF the only sufficient way to deal with it involves some coercion at the federal level (Jesse), then a libertarian should be no more opposed to this than using coercion to stop folks from producing noxious gases (like High Every Body for example) that enter onto your land.

    Is it just me, or is that a lot of "if's" you are using along the extended and tortuous logical chain used to justify what would be almost certain economic Seppuku?

  • Xeones||

    You are stranded on a deserted island with MNG and TAO. Everybody has enough food and water. However, MNG has managed to gather all the marijuana and refuses to share it with either you or TAO.

    What do you do?


    First, i would move to the other side of the island so i don't have to listen to the two of them going at it. Then, using my mad whittling skills, i would carve Obama's likeness into a coconut, which i would allow MNG to genuflect before in exchange for a tithe of the sticky.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    And who says "property rights" includes the air that is wafting over you land in the first place?

    You cleary own the ground and any physical impovements made to it (like a house).

    It is not clear that you "own" the atmosphere blowing over it.

    You don't have a right to keep an airplane from flying throught air that is 30,000 feet directly over your house.

  • High Every Body||

    If it is my property, shouldn't I be the one who determines what noxious fumes I want to exclude? Isn't the whole point of private property the right to exclude?

    Great. So if you have some crazy notion that nitrogen is a pollutant you are going to make the whole world keep it off your land? Then you need to lower the air pressure, to avoid oxygen saturation, so the rest of the freaking world needs to comply?

    Sorry, no dice. If you want to keep the regular air off of your land build your own bubble, boy.

  • ||

    That said - IF (and only if) all of those assumptions can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, some coercive regulation may be justified. I would still favor harm reduction strategies first, as they are much less expensive. And I hasten to add that ALL of your IF's are really more like maybe's - and this one:

    F it will have the consequences for mankind that some say it will

    seems to be the mile wide hole for me.

  • ||

    tithe of the sticky

    selling way short, Xeones, you could be getting at least half of the bud for that. Maybe more if you carved a magic cock...

  • robc||

    You don't have a right to keep an airplane from flying throught air that is 30,000 feet directly over your house.

    Or maybe you do.

    This is part of my point. Property rights can legitimately be defined in a number of ways. If you dont own the air though (which seems to be a reasonable way to do it) then cleaning up "pollution" above your property is your own responsibility. Which seems a perfectly reasonable result and probably what Coasean bargaining would lead to.

    If you do own all the air above your property, shooting down airplanes and suing any bastard who allows his CO2 to waft over my property is also legit.

  • ||

    If Souter is leaving, and R B Ginsberg is currently knocking on Death's door...

    Time to stockpile projectile weapons.

  • robc||

    P Brooks,

    Not sure I follow. Having Obama replace Souter and Ginsberg seems to be a minor at worst problem. Really, who is he going to pick worse than them?

  • ||

    Really, who is he going to pick worse than them?

    Do you really doubt that a) this is possible, and b) Obama is the man to do it?

  • robc||

    Okay, looking at the results of Az v Gant, I can answer my previous question with "Breyer".

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Or maybe you do."

    Except that it has already been established that you don't.

    If you tried to sue American Airlines for violating your "property rights" by flying over your house at 30,0000 feet, you would be laughed out of court.

  • robc||

    domo,

    A - is possible
    B - nope, not Obama. I dont see him picking a Breyer type. 2 more Ginsbergs seems most likely.

    Im guessing whoever Obama picks wont be partying at the Scalia home like Ginsberg did.

  • ||

    "Except that it has already been established that you don't."

    In some places you have a right to a view that could impose restrictions on a neighbor's property, i.e., your rights to the space above land could extend beyond your own land! Recently in Orlando, the city gov't denied a permit because the proposed high rise would block the views of Lake Eola from an already existing condo debacle building.

  • robc||

    Gilbert Martin,

    Rights have nothing to do with the law. :)

  • kinnath||

    From Andrew Leonard over at Salon (some I used to respect at one time):

    The main grief the holdout lenders appear to have is that, according to bankruptcy law and tradition, they believe that the Chrysler debt that they purchased (often at a discount, long after it was clear that the company was in deep trouble) has rights that are superior to some of the "junior" parties involved. The government, they believe, is stumbling into a Hugo Chavez role, running roughshod over everyone in its way. First -- a take it or leave it deal for Wall Street hedge funds. Next nationalization of Citigroup! And then finally, everyone who works on Wall Street gets forced to wear a dunce cap and kick-me sign.
    .
    .
    .
    .

    Here is where the mind boggles. These are smart people, we have been led to believe. Do they not understand the mood in the country? Do they not get, that to many people, the Obama administration has been too soft on Wall Street. How can they not understand that there are times to bitch and moan, and times to just take your punishment, and now is the time for the latter.


    So much for the rule of law.

  • Xeones||

    you could be getting at least half of the bud for that.

    Ah, but my tithe would include cultivatable seeds, and once i've got my own crop i would allow myself the supreme emotional satisfaction of making MNG watch as i drop Cocobama into a volcano.

    If the island is nonvolcanic, i will eat Cocobama.

  • ||

    Wow. The science fiction writer David Brin has become a massive asshole. In a comment on this whiny little article about how Geoengineering is so much more impractical than reducing the world's energy infrastructure to rubble, he makes this comment about "denialists."

    There is asolution. Let a consortium be formed with one aim, to collect names and public statements, with an openly stated goal:

    "These people clearly have followed a pattern of obstructing humanity's efforts to come to grips, to innovate and to solve a desperate threat to our nation, world, children and planetary survival. Their eagerness to jump from one failed rationalization to another has only one common theme -- a relentless eagerness to block civilization's efforts to become more energy efficient.

    "Since there are NO other commen elements to their positions, we shall operate under the assujmption that blocking energy efficiency is their central goal."

    This consortium should go on to make a simple declartion:

    "From this moment on, we serve notice. All evidence gathered will go toward building a case for civil lawuits, to be filed in future years, holding these people financially responsible for tort damages done to our nation, people, children, civilization and planet, by a conspiracy whose sole aim was to prevent the amelioration of a deadly threat to public health and public welfare. Based upon the utter consistency of their behavior -- similar to that of the tobacco companies, during their own denial and obstruction epoch -- we plan to reduce some of the pain and damages that this conspiracy will have caused, by seeking civil damages plus major punitive penalties.

    "Individuals have perfect freedom of speech. But when lies are spread with malicious and selfish intent that results in palpable harm to others, the victims (we and our posterity) do have recourse in court. Participants in this conspiracy are served notice. They should step back and view their relentless campaign against energy efficiency in this light."



    No wonder he hasn't put out a decent book in years, he's too busy rubbing his hands in glee over the prospect of being put in change of a La Cabana for ideological opponents.

  • robc||

    GM,

    I was discussing property rights as a platonic ideal in this thread. I agree with you on actual implementation, but my whole point was getting from platonic ideal to implementation, and on that we agree. The law seems to be settled, if you dont like what is wafting into your property, clean it up your own damn self.

  • ||

    There are many property rights that extend beyond merely what you build on your land. Easements in gross come to mind.

  • ||

    If three people are on an island, I'm sure the strict utilitarian MNG would have no problem with the other two killing and eating him. It's for the greater good after all.

  • robc||

    David Brin has become a massive asshole

    has become?

  • ||

    robc,

    Well, I haven't paid him much mind lately. I was just being polite-ish.

  • High Every Body||

    SF,

    If three people are on an island, I'm sure the strict utilitarian MNG would have no problem with the other two killing and eating him. It's for the greater good after all.

    I already shot him. Let TAO eat him. He might have the munchies after I give him all the weed.

  • ||

    Really, who is he going to pick worse than them?

    I have no doubt the administration has a team of "legal scholars" currently beating the bushes in search of just such persons.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Rights have nothing to do with the law. :)"

    And the law has nothing to do with what's right!

    LOL

  • robc||

    Well, I haven't paid him much mind lately. I was just being polite-ish.

    I avoided reading him for years because of his assholishness. First thing I ever saw about him screamed ASSHOLE!!!!! So, as far as I can tell, he has always been that way.

  • kinnath||

    I still counting on AGW to make it possible for vitis vinifera to grow here in Iowa.

    My retirement plans depend on it.

  • ||

    Participants in this conspiracy are served notice. They should step back and view their relentless campaign against energy efficiency in this light.

    How does he reconcile his desire to burn crosses on these people's lawns with "energy efficiency"?

  • ||

    Well, I certainly got bored of Brin after the 2nd Uplift Trilogy and the incredible obviousness of Kiln People. (We get it, they're slaves. Duh.) I never really delved into his life outside of being a writer. I usually find I'd rather not know. Much like Orson Scott Card, even though I never cared much for his fiction.

  • ||

    I already shot him. Let TAO eat him. He might have the munchies after I give him all the weed.

    Awesome - I want to get stuck of desert weed island with HEB. he hunts, and lets you have the dope.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "If three people are on an island, I'm sure the strict utilitarian MNG would have no problem with the other two killing and eating him. It's for the greater good after all."

    Well not exactly in this particular case, as there is a high probably that the other two would subsequently die of food poisoning.

  • ||

    PB,

    And what's efficient about "green" energy? Sustainable? Renewable? Sure, but "efficient"?

  • ||

    I say that Obama nominates himself.

  • ||

    Just in case it comes up... don't eat me after I die. The various chemicals and drugs in my body makes me medium-level toxic to eat. I'm full of keytones and artificial insulin. Any nourishment derived would probably be more than offset with kidney strain and hypoglycemia as a result. (I can't be an organ donor or donate blood for the same reasons.)

    You could probably get away with eating my heart to gain my courage, if you like.

  • ||

    Obama for Souter, Oprah for Ginsberg.

    Shining City on the Hill, here we come!

  • Geoffrey Goldblum||

    Obama should nominate five justices to replace Souter. With thirteen on the court, especially with so many chosen by a leader committed to justice and progress, we could finally begin to real change in this country. Having more voices on the SCOTUS would increase the diversity of opinion present and better represent America.

  • db||

    as I know, the scientific consensus on AGW is: "Is it happening?" "Yes, definitely." "Can we stop it if we do 'X'?" "We really don't know." And if "X" involves coercion, you kinda sorta have to know.




    We are fast approaching the point when the scientists are going to have to get out of the way and let the engineers start working on an actual solution.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    I'm so stoked for our island vacation!

    If three people are on an island, I'm sure the strict utilitarian MNG would have no problem with the other two killing and eating him. It's for the greater good after all.



    Complete, utter and devastating WIN.

  • ||

    Could we trick him into nominating Janice Rogers Brown? She's a black woman, which should matter more than her politics. After all, there is no way on Earth that he's nominating a white male, regardless of merit or political suitability.

  • ||

    All this talk of cannibalism has got me ready for lunch. Must go eat.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Obama should nominate five justices to replace Souter..."

    I wouldn't put it past him to try it.

    FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court and Obama fancies himeslf as a new and improved FDR.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Thanks to FDR, court-packing is radiation to politicians. Obama isn't (that) dumb...although it would be pretty awesome if he tried it. I mean, there would not be a faster way to dilute his brand.

    Anyway, I guess we're about to see if the Dems will remain as excited about Specter as they claim they are.

  • ||

    "Obama should nominate five justices to replace Souter. With thirteen on the court, especially with so many chosen by a leader committed to justice and progress, we could finally begin to real change in this country. Having more voices on the SCOTUS would increase the diversity of opinion present and better represent America."

    Like FDR wanted to do during the first New Deal.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    I know Goldblum was just kidding...right?!?

    "No. He really did make Independence Day"

  • ||

    Caroline Kennedy would make a good Supreme Court Justice!

  • Naga Sadow||

    Pro Lib,

    Your idea of Obama nominating himself intrigues me. Are you saying that Obama has some sorta "Boys from Brazil" experiment going on right now?

  • Giilbert Martin||

    "Could we trick him into nominating Janice Rogers Brown? She's a black woman, which should matter more than her politics."

    Except that she's not "really" black to a liberal like Obama.

    Only liberal blacks actually count as being black, you see.

  • High Every Body||

    All this talk of cannibalism has got me ready for lunch. Must go eat.

    Pudsey Bear! Hide!

  • ||

    Sugar Free and TAO-


    Not to whine, but don't I get an assist?

    Sorry, MNG, this is a poster eat poster island.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    oh, you definitely get an assist...actually, you're the Godfather of half the discussion board. I literally LOLd at the original post.

  • ||

    Clones? Who needs clones? I meant Obama would appoint himself and act as President and as Chief Justice.

  • ||

    I still counting on AGW to make it possible for vitis vinifera to grow here in Iowa.

    Your wait is over. There are vineyards in Wisconsin, so there should be no problem in Iowa.

  • ||

    All this talk of cannibalism has got me ready for lunch. Must go eat.

    Pudsey Bear! Hide!


    HEB scores.

    This talk of Brin depresses me. One of his characters is my namesake, for fuck's sake. Everyone becomes an asshole eventually (except Heinlein and Matheson), but still, it sucks.

  • ||

    Everyone becomes an asshole eventually

    Not ME!

  • ||

    P, especially you. And Harlan Ellison. Wait, he was always an asshole.

  • ||

    Heinlein wasn't an asshole, but he did have a period of being a little nuts.

  • ||

    especially you.

    Nice, coming from the guy who skullfucks TEDDYBEARS!

  • ||

    I learned it from watching YOU!

  • ||

    Nice, coming from the guy who skullfucks TEDDYBEARS!

  • ||

    2nd try:

    Nice, coming from the guy who skullfucks TEDDYBEARS!

    NTTAWWT

  • High Every Body||

    SF,

    Nice html buddy, how is remedial URL class coming along?

  • ||

    I learned it from watching YOU!

    I could have sworn I cut the cable to that security camera.

  • ||

    HEB, shut yo face. Actually, no html... the first part stripped off my addendum, even after previewing.

  • just a guy||

    Nice, coming from the guy who skullfucks TEDDYBEARS!

    Can you provide a link?

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    the first part stripped off my addendum

    Woah! You need to see a doctor about that!

  • ||

    Well, there has been a milky discharge...

  • High Every Body||

    HEB, shut yo face. Actually, no html... the first part stripped off my addendum, even after previewing.

    So, Pudsey Bear at your homework?

  • ||

    ZOMG! MY KOMPUTER HAZ TEH SWINE FLUZ!

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Look, Brin might be an asshole, but we do still owe him one for his Star Wars & Lord of the Rings destruction:

    Just what bill of goods are we being sold, between the frames? Elites have an inherent right to arbitrary rule; common citizens needn't be consulted. They may only choose which elite to follow.

    "Good" elites should act on their subjective whims, without evidence, argument or accountability.

    Any amount of sin can be forgiven if you are important enough.

    True leaders are born. It's genetic.

    The right to rule is inherited. Justified human emotions can turn a good person evil.

    That is just the beginning of a long list of moral lessons relentlessly pushed by Star Wars.




    And actually - that got me thinking more seriously about the underlying subtext of media (which is now somewhat of an area of expertise of mine, working... you know... in media).

  • ||

    Recently in Orlando, the city gov't denied a permit because the proposed high rise would block the views of Lake Eola from an already existing condo debacle building.



    Does anyone even live in any of those?

    I wouldn't be surprised if the developer is not thanking his lucky stars. Surely getting denied a permit lets you to back out of all your commitments to architects, engineers, contractors, lenders and the like, doesn't it? And who in their right mind would want to go ahead with a project in the wasteland that O-town has become?

  • High Every Body||

    So, Pudsey Bear at your homework?

    Your stupid cream-filled bear ATE the e at the end of "at" in that earlier comment.

    Damn you Pudsey Bear!

  • ||

    the first part stripped off my addendum

    Dooood!

    *winces*

  • Dr. Tobias Funke||

    Clarence Thomas is Black?

    Only in color.

  • kinnath||

    Your wait is over. There are vineyards in Wisconsin, so there should be no problem in Iowa.

    Ah yes, the various grapes cultivated by Mr Swenson. These are not, however, viniferous -- they are blends including vinifera, riparia, labrusca, and others.

    Cornell in NY, as well as, the University of Minnesota have also release many French/American hybrids which can produce some decent wine (I have some going in the basement right now). Again, these are far from purely viniferous grapes.

    True vitis vinifera wouldn't survive until Christmas, let alone January and February in Iowa.

  • ||

    "Does anyone even live in any of those [downtown condos]?"

    The downtown condos are empty. The condos in Thornton Park are slightly less empty (probably because they were the first). The condos were poorly designed from the start. They have one bedroom condos priced at $300,000+ with only one parking spot. There aren't enough young, straight-but-kinda-faggy professionals in Orlando to fill a building like that. It's all couples and roomies, so parking has turned into a nightmare. Plus, shitty construction means you get to hear all about your neighbor's sex life, marital abuse, and bowel movements if he's a big eater.

    Why did the city push so hard for these things to be built? Because Orlando is schizo. The city pushes to rezone the local neighborhoods, turning the neighborhood houses surrounding downtown in to law offices, accountants and other professionals. Then New York became cool again, so naturally, our fat-yet-still-metrosexual mayor decides everybody should live in an upscale beehive. After he helped his buddies out, and gave millions and millions of tax dollars to developers, we have a city where people file out of their high rise cubicle in the sky to go to work in a single family house converted into an office. Nobody seems to get how backwards it all is.

    Naturally, nobody wants to discuss how city spending made Orlando one of the worst cities for the condo bust. Nobody wants to discuss why a $10 million offer still couldn't lure a major movie theater downtown. Nobody wants to discuss how housing that was once nice turns to ghetto housing (like when condos saturate the market). Nope. All they want to do is pretend they live an "upscale" lifestyle while wearing fashions that were two years old last year, gloating over shitty cigars and thinking just how good they have it in their 600 square foot apartment.

  • ||

    After he helped his buddies out, and gave millions and millions of tax dollars to developers, we have a city where people file out of their high rise cubicle in the sky to go to work in a single family house converted into an office. Nobody seems to get how backwards it all is.

    Excellent!

    Rumor has it that the Big Bamboo Lounge was torn down.
    You people are getting what you deserve.

  • ||

    Lamar,

    Tampa has had similar problems, and it's a real city, unlike Orlando.

  • ||

    So, Lamar, what are the chances O-town gets the Irish publican as its next mayor?

    I sort of have to chuckle looking at the implosion of the Dyer regime. I don't really follow Orlando politics but my understanding is he's out next election (or is he term limited?)

    So are we still going to get the new O-rena and Performing Arts Center? I can say "we" since Altamonte Springs is in Greater Orlando, although I prefer to think of it a part of Greater Taintsville.

    Tampa has had similar problems, and it's a real city, unlike Orlando.



    Aren't all Florida cities in the same boat, pretty much?

    Two years ago everyone was flying high. The bubble was never going to burst.

    Pop!!!!!!!

  • ||

    P Brooks

    The Big Bamboo Lounge was in Kissimmee, not Orlando.

    Another loss in the Greater Orlando area was Club Juana home of Shakespeare in the nude, EDed for the SR 15/600 (US 17/92) Interchange at SR 436 in Seminole County.

    After all the attempts to close the place it finally fell victim to a road construction project.

  • Suki||

    Aren't all Florida cities in the same boat, pretty much?

    No doubt during hurricane season.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

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

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement