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
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?
|5.1.09 @ 8:06AM|#
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|5.1.09 @ 8:15AM|#
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|5.1.09 @ 8:16AM|#
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.
von Laue|5.1.09 @ 8:27AM|#
"Disgruntled Dutchman tries to assassinate royal family" link goes to something else.
High Every Body|5.1.09 @ 8:31AM|#
Disgruntled Dutchman tries to assassinate royal family,
kills five onlookers instead.
The coverup has begun! Link goes to the pirate sory.
|5.1.09 @ 8:35AM|#
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|5.1.09 @ 8:36AM|#
"Souter was George H W Bush's biggest mistake."
No his biggest mistake was not pulling out when W was
concieved.
Nikola T|5.1.09 @ 8:41AM|#
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|5.1.09 @ 8:44AM|#
Link fixed. Thanks.
Coverup over. The dogged persuit of regular people to demand the
truth has prevailed!
Abdul|5.1.09 @ 9:06AM|#
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.
|5.1.09 @ 9:07AM|#
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|5.1.09 @ 9:07AM|#
Joe Biden goes off-message
Isn't Biden just an uglier, more liberal Sarah Palin?
MNG|5.1.09 @ 9:10AM|#
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|5.1.09 @ 9:15AM|#
"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|5.1.09 @ 9:16AM|#
Did dinosaurs survive the Cretaceous extinctions?
Scientists might have been wrong about something! See, evolution IS
a myth!
High Every Body|5.1.09 @ 9:18AM|#
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.
|5.1.09 @ 9:23AM|#
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|5.1.09 @ 9:24AM|#
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|5.1.09 @ 9:24AM|#
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!
robc|5.1.09 @ 9:29AM|#
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|5.1.09 @ 9:30AM|#
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.
|5.1.09 @ 9:30AM|#
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|5.1.09 @ 9:31AM|#
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|5.1.09 @ 9:31AM|#
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|5.1.09 @ 9:32AM|#
libertymike,
Shoot her. And I don't even smoke weed, that is not the issue.
|5.1.09 @ 9:34AM|#
Sugar Free-
I would add Duke, Northwestern and Standford. Give me Eureka
College.
|5.1.09 @ 9:35AM|#
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|5.1.09 @ 9:41AM|#
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.
|5.1.09 @ 9:41AM|#
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|5.1.09 @ 9:45AM|#
Did dinosaurs survive the Cretaceous extinctions?
Yes. They're called birds.
High Every Body|5.1.09 @ 9:46AM|#
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|5.1.09 @ 9:48AM|#
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 ;)
Jesse Walker|5.1.09 @ 10:03AM|#
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.
Kreel Sarloo|5.1.09 @ 10:04AM|#
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|5.1.09 @ 10:05AM|#
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|5.1.09 @ 10:06AM|#
Cabeza De Vaca,
Yes, but calling her a lady is much too much of a stretch.
|5.1.09 @ 10:08AM|#
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.
|5.1.09 @ 10:12AM|#
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.
|5.1.09 @ 10:14AM|#
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.
|5.1.09 @ 10:29AM|#
-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|5.1.09 @ 10:31AM|#
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!).
|5.1.09 @ 10:32AM|#
Clarence Thomas is BLACK?!?
"Conservativism" cancels blackness; whitewashes your soul, as it
were, so, no.
Gilbert Martin|5.1.09 @ 10:42AM|#
"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|5.1.09 @ 10:45AM|#
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|5.1.09 @ 10:46AM|#
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|5.1.09 @ 10:47AM|#
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.
|5.1.09 @ 10:48AM|#
"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".
|5.1.09 @ 10:48AM|#
"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?
Gilbert Martin|5.1.09 @ 10:50AM|#
"...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|5.1.09 @ 10:52AM|#
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.")
|5.1.09 @ 10:53AM|#
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|5.1.09 @ 10:54AM|#
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|5.1.09 @ 10:55AM|#
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|5.1.09 @ 10:56AM|#
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.
|5.1.09 @ 10:57AM|#
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.
|5.1.09 @ 10:59AM|#
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|5.1.09 @ 10:59AM|#
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.
|5.1.09 @ 11:00AM|#
If Souter is leaving, and R B Ginsberg is currently knocking on
Death's door...
Time to stockpile projectile weapons.
robc|5.1.09 @ 11:02AM|#
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?
|5.1.09 @ 11:03AM|#
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|5.1.09 @ 11:04AM|#
Okay, looking at the results of Az v Gant, I can answer my previous question with "Breyer".
Gilbert Martin|5.1.09 @ 11:04AM|#
"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|5.1.09 @ 11:06AM|#
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.
|5.1.09 @ 11:06AM|#
"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.
kinnath|5.1.09 @ 11:06AM|#
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|5.1.09 @ 11:07AM|#
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.
|5.1.09 @ 11:08AM|#
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|5.1.09 @ 11:09AM|#
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.
|5.1.09 @ 11:09AM|#
There are many property rights that extend beyond merely what you build on your land. Easements in gross come to mind.
|5.1.09 @ 11:09AM|#
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.
High Every Body|5.1.09 @ 11:11AM|#
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.
|5.1.09 @ 11:12AM|#
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|5.1.09 @ 11:15AM|#
"Rights have nothing to do with the law. :)"
And the law has nothing to do with what's right!
LOL
robc|5.1.09 @ 11:16AM|#
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|5.1.09 @ 11:17AM|#
I still counting on AGW to make it possible for vitis vinifera
to grow here in Iowa.
My retirement plans depend on it.
|5.1.09 @ 11:19AM|#
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"?
|5.1.09 @ 11:20AM|#
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.
|5.1.09 @ 11:20AM|#
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|5.1.09 @ 11:21AM|#
"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.
|5.1.09 @ 11:22AM|#
PB,
And what's efficient about "green" energy? Sustainable? Renewable?
Sure, but "efficient"?
|5.1.09 @ 11:27AM|#
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.
Geoffrey Goldblum|5.1.09 @ 11:29AM|#
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|5.1.09 @ 11:29AM|#
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|5.1.09 @ 11:32AM|#
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.
|5.1.09 @ 11:32AM|#
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.
Gilbert Martin|5.1.09 @ 11:35AM|#
"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|5.1.09 @ 11:39AM|#
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.
|5.1.09 @ 11:40AM|#
"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|5.1.09 @ 11:44AM|#
I know Goldblum was just kidding...right?!?
"No. He really did make Independence Day"
Naga Sadow|5.1.09 @ 11:47AM|#
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|5.1.09 @ 11:48AM|#
"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|5.1.09 @ 12:05PM|#
All this talk of cannibalism has got me ready for lunch.
Must go eat.
Pudsey Bear! Hide!
|5.1.09 @ 12:10PM|#
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|5.1.09 @ 12:13PM|#
oh, you definitely get an assist...actually, you're the Godfather of half the discussion board. I literally LOLd at the original post.
|5.1.09 @ 12:25PM|#
Clones? Who needs clones? I meant Obama would appoint himself and act as President and as Chief Justice.
|5.1.09 @ 12:29PM|#
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.
|5.1.09 @ 12:48PM|#
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.
|5.1.09 @ 1:18PM|#
I learned it from watching YOU!
I could have sworn I cut the cable to that security camera.
|5.1.09 @ 1:26PM|#
HEB, shut yo face. Actually, no html... the first part stripped off my addendum, even after previewing.
just a guy|5.1.09 @ 1:28PM|#
Nice, coming from the guy who skullfucks
TEDDYBEARS!
Can you provide a link?
Art-P.O.G.|5.1.09 @ 1:34PM|#
the first part stripped off my addendum
Woah! You need to see a doctor about that!
High Every Body|5.1.09 @ 1:46PM|#
HEB, shut yo face. Actually, no html... the first part
stripped off my addendum, even after previewing.
So, Pudsey Bear at your homework?
Sean W. Malone|5.1.09 @ 1:52PM|#
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).
|5.1.09 @ 1:53PM|#
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|5.1.09 @ 1:55PM|#
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!
kinnath|5.1.09 @ 2:46PM|#
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.
|5.1.09 @ 3:12PM|#
"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.
|5.1.09 @ 4:14PM|#
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.
|5.1.09 @ 5:56PM|#
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!!!!!!!
|5.1.09 @ 6:05PM|#
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.
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