Reason Morning Links: Pirates, Lobbyists, Carp, and Gargoyles

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.

  • Mr Whipple||

    Court battle looms in possible eminent domain case.

    The owners of the Crown Fried Chicken property on East and Landis avenues have sued the city and the state, claiming the city improperly designated their property as being in need of redevelopment.

    City Council adopted in July a Planning Board recommendation that Crown Fried Chicken and several properties at that intersection are “in need of redevelopment” based on the state’s Redevelopment and Housing Law.

    The designation cleared the way for the city to legally use eminent domain as a last resort to take control of the properties.

    http://www.thedailyjournal.com.....is-project

    Court doc:

    http://www.thedailyjournal.com/assets/pdf/A816377699.PDF

  • Fire Tiger||

    According to Google maps, that particular location is in the middle of a space time vortex. So I can see why the city may not consider it to be properly kept up.
    Crown Fried Chick, 912 E Landis Ave

  • Nipplemancer||

    it's bigger on the inside

  • Mr Whipple||

    WTF?

  • Johnny Longtorso||

  • Mo||

    Denialism is a word that predates the global warming debate by at least a decade. It has been used on subjects such as AIDS and the Holocaust. Michael Specter titled his book about it and covered anti-vaccine folks, anti-GMU and dietary supplements. Those are typical lefty, rather than righty, hobbyhorses.

  • ||

    Denialism is a perfectly appropriate word in the right context. If you are talking about something as indisputable as the Holocaust, denialism is the appropriate term.

    The problem is AGW is no where near being that indisputable. Its believers only import the term "denialism" into that debate because they don't want the debate to be honest.

  • ||

    Anyone who uses the term "denialist" to describe critics and/or skeptics of ongoing scientific research is a fool, a liar and a political operative, though not neccessarily in that order.

    It's used to shut down debate and to demonize speakers, period. In any just world, other practioners would ostracize them for damaging the foundations of science, but, oh no, not in Big Warming. They're doing god's work.

  • Mo||

    It depends what evidence and reason you have behind your skepticism and criticism. It's one thing to attack it based on faulty data, time frame used, incorrect assessment of the cost-benefit analysis, etc. However, if you are skeptical of evolution because of a book written by ancient desert nomads and the shape of the banana or believe that there's a global scientific conspiracy to give kids autism through vaccines then you deserve to be called a denialist.

    In short, evidence and critiques of methodologies are the correct way to debate things. Faith-based arguments and conspiracy theories are not.

  • ||

    You seem to have missed the word "ongoing."

  • Mo||

    Just because there is an ongoing debate does not mean that there aren't people making dishonest arguments because they don't want to believe it.

  • ||

    Screw DARPA. Until they get the human catapult going they are dead to me.

  • Brett L||

    What could possibly go wrong?

  • ||

    Fuck all of the global warming hoax deniers.

  • Johnny Longtorso||

  • Coeds||

    Beats getting raped anyways

  • Johnny Longtorso||

    Steve Smith reference in 5...4...3...2...1...

  • Attorney||

    Send them to state schools. You're already paying for them anyway.

  • Attorney||

    "them" #1 = your kids.

    "them" #2 = state schools.

  • DJ Drugs||

    The second "them" works as a #1 or #2.

  • Butts Wagner||

    "There's nothing you can't do on your own," Altucher says. A provocative idea -- and a liberating one. Even if it's not entirely true.

    Please name one, Washington Post.

  • cynical||

    I prefer my neurosurgeon have a degree, but to each his own.

  • Butts Wagner||

    I prefer my neurosurgeon to have a list of good references and plenty of successful hands on experience.

  • CaptainSmartass||

    Eh, as long as he has the page on neurosurgery from Wikipedia open on his iPhone while he's cutting into my skull, I'm sure it'll be fine.

  • Borat||

    Sexy time?

  • DADIODADDY||

    Crap czar? what the hell do we need an Asian Crap Czar for?

  • ||

    Despite that, "czar" is still the stupidest word choice in that title.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I hope to one day be named Czar Wrangler Czar. I envision the post as coordinating the efforts of the White House czar wranglers in wrangling up the White House czars. I will report directly to whoever is currently in charge at the White House.

    My first act is to suggest the spelling be changed to the more correct "tsar".

  • DJ Drugs||

    I really missed the use of the spelling Czar. When I was a young child, I decided which books on Russian history I preferred based on the spelling of Czar/Tsar. I though Czar was more fun.

    For whatever it's worth, don't you see the Cz used more often in English? Look to the word "Czech" for an example.

    Isn't Czar a little more consistent in a way?

  • Rich||

    "This is a serious challenge, a serious threat," [Senator] Durbin said.

    We *must* have an unelected official in charge of every "serious challenge". It's the modern way.

  • JD||

    Rule 34, dude. We can't have Asian scat porn going virtually unregulated.

  • Fire Tiger||

    Does anyone know how much the White House spends on Czars?

  • Fire Tiger||

    Does anyone know how much the White House spends on Czars?

  • President Barack Obama||

    We are appointing a cost monitoring czar to monitor how much we spend on czars. All in the interest of absolute transparency, of course.

  • DADIODADDY||

    Does anyone know how much the White House spends on carp or crap?

  • President Barack Obama||

    Let me make one thing perfectly clear: I did not know he was Asian, and I did not know he was a carp, when I nominated him to be czar.

  • junior||

    The Frenchies make more sense than us. I guess I can understand why carving "Allah Akbar" on the side of a Cathedral might offend a bunch of Catholics.

  • Slut Bunwalla||

    Uh, excuse me, but this lion here is waiting to be towed. Get to it, pal.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The master mason is the one who should be offended. I know gargoyles are supposed to be ugly, but damn.

  • Zeb||

    Don't Catholics think God is great?

  • Brett L||

    No. We're usually to busy with our idolatrous worship of saints and virgins.

  • Brett L||

    *too busy

  • JEP||

    don't forget the great Cathol

  • ||

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.co.....s-irs.html

    41 Obama White House aides owe the IRS $831,000 in back taxes -- and they're not alone

  • ||

    I usually don’t think there is much of a difference between the Republicans and the Democrats but when it comes to not paying taxes it seems like the Democrats are in the forefront.

    Maybe that is why they don’t mind raising taxes, they don’t pay them.

  • ||

    It is disgraceful. It ought to be a national scandal. But the major media will just ignore it.

  • sarcasmic||

    Why shouldn't they ignore it?
    It's only news when someone claims the moral high ground and then gets busted.
    Democrats have never claimed to be moral or honest, nor have they ever known shame.
    So when they cheat, lie, and act like nothing happened, it's not news.

  • ||

    I don't care who it is. People should pay their taxes. And when people in power don't, it is damaging to the country. These crapweasels don't think the rules apply to them. That is the last thing the media should be ignoring. If they are cheating on their taxes, what other awful things are they doing.

    By your standards, no one should care when a NABLA member molests little boys. Since when is hypocrisy the only standard of behavior?

  • sarcasmic||

    By my standards? You presume to know about my standards? You don't know shit about my standards. If I had my way, violating the oath of office would result in public execution. How's that for standards?

    I was talking about the standards of society and the media.
    Democrats do not claim that the rules apply to them, so when they don't follow the rules there's no hypocrisy.

    If there's no hypocrisy then there's no news.

    Nobody cares.

  • ||

    That is nuts. If hypocrisy is the only thing that matters, people can do anything as long as they don't claim to believe what they are doing is wrong.

    No, behavior does matter. Sorry but "we told you we were crooks and the rules only applied to you not us" doesn't make this not a news story. And yes people care. This kind of stuff resonates with the public. If you don't think so, go ask the 40 or 50 congressman from both parties who were run out of public life in 1994 over the House Bank check floating scandal.

  • Zeb||

    I think he is saying that hypocrisy is the only thing that makes the news, not that it is the only thing anyone should care about.

  • sarcasmic||

    And yes people care. This kind of stuff resonates with the public.

    Get back to me on that after Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters get reelected.

  • johnny||

    Screw that NO One should pay their taxes.

  • DG||

    It seems like the issues politicians are most vocal about are the ones they themselves don't follow. This is the Democrats' version of anti-gay senators getting caught in the restroom with another man.

  • Ragin Cajun||

    It is almost like DC is staffed entirely with hypocrites or something.

  • sarcasmic||

    They're lawyers.

    Same diff.

  • ||

    TIMMAH!

  • ||

    How does that even happen without it being intentional? It's not simply the non-payment that's disgraceful, it's the intentional non-payment.

  • kc||

    I think any government worker who owes back taxes should have to sit through a (very!) long lecture from Biden about how they're not patriotic enough and should be happy to pay more in taxes, it's their duty, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
    Then not let them out the of the room until they pay up.

  • cynical||

    Unconstitutional -- cruel and unusual punishment.

  • DADIODADDY||

    more like hysterically funny and really cool punishment

  • ||

    What French people debate instead of Koran-burnings and mosques

    But the carving has been denounced by Les Jeunes Identitaires Lyonnais..."While in many Muslim countries, Christianity is forbidden and Christians persecuted, in Lyon, Muslims take over our churches at their leisure."

    Cool! A French Newt Gingrich!

  • ||

    That gargoyle story, who cares. But did you see the picture on the story page? It looks like one of the village people is giving it to the gargoyle greek style. No homo.

  • ||

    That "no homo" thing is a little played out, no?

  • ||

    No, homo.

  • ||

    I have seen the light of the sun.

  • ||

    Be the first of your friends to like this.

  • Keyboard Commando||

    The sun? Oh, shit. I thought it was a distended ballon knot. No homo.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Your mom's a little played out.

  • ||

    Be the first of your friends to like this.

  • ||

    Marines fight pirates.

    Just in time to make 'Talk Like a Pirate Day' more interest (Sept. 19).

    Now go practice a sea shantie you filthy curs.

  • ||

    Does everyone speak Somali that day?

  • ||

    Talk like a pirate day is on a Sunday? How bloody stupid.

  • ||

    This year, talking like a pirate will mean saying, "Please don't shoot us, leathernecks!"

  • ||

    ""Marines fight pirates.""

    In related news, Johnny Depp quits Pirates of the Caribbean 4 claiming the US government is after him.

  • Barely Contained Rage||

    How long before Johnny Depp becomes as annoying and retarded as Sean Penn?

  • CaptainSmartass||

    About five years ago.

  • joe||

    DAMMIT!

  • joe||

    -5 years or so

  • Pope Jimbo||

    "U.S. officials now face the challenge of deciding what to do with the pirates."

    Is it too much to ask that we repeat history? And I am thinking here of Captain Kidd. Maybe use the port of Mogadishu?

  • ||

    U.S. officials now face the challenge of deciding what to do with the pirates.

    See, this is what happens when you capture them. Shoulda used a SWAT team - no survivors, that way.

  • SWATzi Commander||

    When we shot their doggie, the Somalis just shrugged their shoulders and a built a fire to eat it. It was the most demoralizing thing that my mean have ever witnessed. I wont put them through that Hell again.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The soldiers, the driver and the TV host are all in on the joke. It's the famous person who is being had.

    But this is Iraq, not MTV. Here, it gets ugly fast. In one episode, a soldier screamed at the passenger in Arabic: "I'm going to shoot you. You're a terrorist!"

    The Iraqis are acting like irresponsible, tasteless idiots on TV for the sake of ratings. As an American, I couldn't be more proud. Truly, the US has won that war.

  • ||

    The Iraqis are acting like irresponsible, tasteless idiots on TV for the sake of ratings.

    And people said they were not prepared to be an advanced democracy!

  • Attorney||

    Gov. Christie turns the tables on whining teacher:

    Watch the Fat Man in action hier.

  • Mike M.||

    Totally awesome. Go governor go!

  • Fat Man Fan||

    I could excuse a minor arithmetic error for ... Paul/Christie 2012.

  • Rowdy Roddy Christie||

    I'm here to kick ass and chew bubble gum, and I'm all out of gum.

  • Cyto||

    I've heard his name bandied about, but I've never really paid any attention. That exchange was so refreshing, and so un-politician, that I'm paying attention now. I didn't hear any talking points, no spin, just straight discussion of the issues at hand. Right or wrong on the issues, you gotta love that approach to politics.

  • KPres||

    Have you seen this?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lzh82kN-_0

  • Rich||

    Lobbyists prepare for the next Congress by hiring more Republicans.

    A leading indicator, as it were.

  • ||

    It is like a whore house preparing for the feet to come in. "Oh the Japanese are coming in, they like big booty, get rid of the skinny girls and bring in some fat chicks."

  • Rich||

    Yep. BTW, you know who else liked big booty?

  • Pirate||

    Did somebody mention big booty?

  • Butts Wagner||

    Pirates?

  • Butts Wagner||

    dammit, I lose

  • ||

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09.....ef=opinion

    Little Pauli Krugnuts today. Japanese style lost decade stagnation is great. Sure they have high unemployment and the future is bleak. But it is still better than letting Republicans run things. Jesus.

  • spambot||

    "But it is still better than letting Republicans run things."

    Pretty much the MO for everything no matter the cost.

  • Mike M.||

    Barring some sudden and dramatic changes, Japan is totally and utterly screwed.

    They have one of the lowest fertility rates in the world, one of the worst public debts, and they are too insular and xenophobic to allow any immigration.

    Add it up and you have the recipe for a catastrophic national implosion.

  • ||

    Why?

    Japan has 127 million people, if its population fell to 60 million would it be a big problem? There would be more room and more resources for everyone. Not saying it should fall to 60 million but why is it so bad?

  • #||

    because agewise, the population will be top heavy with lots of retirees sucking up resources and few workers producing stuff.

  • Mike M.||

    There would be more room and more resources for everyone.

    The idea that fewer people equals more resources is Malthusian balderdash that has been disproven for quite some time now.

    Fewer people is not better, at least not in an advanced society. I recommend a dose of some Julian Simon or Milton Friedman to further your education.

  • ||

    “””Fewer people is not better, at least not in an advanced society.”’

    Why not, what wrong with having more room per person? Since ideas flow across borders there is no real need to overcrowd a country and Japan certainly ranks up in the overcrowded category. Or do you think being stuffed into a subway car everyday is good for the Japanese?

  • ||

    Do you also believe that Norway is a disaster because it only has 5 million people? If Norway can prosper with only 5 million people why can't Japan do it with less then 127 million?

  • DADIODADDY||

    Norway propserous? hahahahahaha...ever been to Norway? There's a reason scandinavia has the highest suicide rate

  • ||

    Japan has twice the suicide rate of Norway

  • Gray Ghost||

    Because, unlike Norway, Japan doesn't have lakes of oil to drain under the sea next door.

  • Warty||

    And the case Democrats now need to make — the case the president finally began to make in Cleveland this week — is that if Republicans regain power, things will indeed be worse.

    Christ, Dickface is coming here? The traffic clusterfuck will make me hate him 18% more.

  • ||

    Remember when these same people were saying that its not good enough to just run against someone, that you had to have a positive plan for the future?

    Guess not.

  • DG||

    Just because you left Pittsburgh doesn't mean you can escape the Obama. He will find you wherever you live.

  • Mosquevite Sandwich||

    Dude, you should show him your new tat. Except, of course, you should have the caloric count and requisite nutrional information tattooed as well first in case Michelle sneaks a peek.

  • ||

    I expected this from Krugman. What disheartens me is how the comments on his columns have turned into an echo chamber. Almost none of the commenters dispute what he says, and the majority moan about how wonderful he is. I expect people to start holding up their babies for him to bless when he walks down the streets of New York, if he ever walks anywhere.

  • ||

    He doesn't walk anywhere. He's carried on a portable throne like that minion in 300. What would really be cool is if someone would jump out and amputate one of his upper appendages.

    "MY ARM!"

    "It's not yours anymore."

  • Corduroy||

    There used to be serious responses to his BS in the comments that were supported by data and references. Krugabe's response was to have the length of comments limited.

  • Virginia||

    let them learn the hard way.

  • Brett L||

    Apparently Florida is a hotbed of 17th Amendment repeal activity.

  • JD||

    I'm not getting behind this movement until they start supporting repeal of the 19th Amendment in addition to the 16th and 17th.

  • cynical||

    It's kind of a weird thing to go after. It does seem like we're seeing more small-r republicans in politics these days, unless maybe I misunderstand that political impulse.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    I don't just want it repealed. I want the states to be required to pick their Senators via their state legistlatures.

  • Rich||

    The ICE link starts off with: The changes focus enforcement on immigrants who have committed serious crimes.

    Webster defines focus as "to cause to be concentrated [focused their attention on the most urgent problems]".

    However, later in the story we read: Director John Morton ordered agency officials on Aug. 20 to begin dismissing deportation cases against people who haven't committed serious crimes

    So, can we expect the IRS to "focus" revenue collection by ignoring small-time tax cheats? Etc.

  • kc||

    see John's post at 9:01 re: 41 Obama WH aides/tax cheats.
    would these be considered small-time?

  • ||

    I haven't been here for a while - are we all consciously not discussing the koran burning/ground zer mosque controversy to keep Libertarians from looking like racists?

  • ||

    domo, we're all recovering from the carpal tunnel we picked up from over a week of compulsive mosquerbation.

  • ||

    damn - I have been busy playing at capitalism and didn't even hear about this until yesterday. I checked the site expecting to see 600 post threads and got bupkis - what was the general consensus? Did anyone "interesting" show up?

  • ||

    The six hundred post thread was the one on Beck's God rally.

  • ||

    not sorry about missing that one. Probably 300 more posts than attendee (unless you use Fox news' count)

  • mosquerbaiter||

    "They've got every right to build it, but shouldn't because it is in bad taste"

    "So you're saying that they don't have the right to build it?"

    "No, they have the right to build it"

    "Why do you oppose their right to build it? Are you an anti-Islamic bigot or something?"

    "I just said they have the right to build it"

    "You're a damned bigot!"

    "WTF, can you read? I said they have the right to build it, but it's not a good idea"

    "You're a bigot! Bigot! Bigot!"

    "sigh"

  • ||

    teh Awesome. Did Reason delete any posts? they have been sensitive about shit like this on occassion...

  • mosquerbaiter||

    I don't think so.

  • Mike M.||

    I believe that the latest news is that the pastor has agreed not to burn the Koran, contingent upon a meeting with a group of Muslims that is supposed to take place this weekend.

    My feeling is pretty much the same on the pastor as it is on the people behind the Cordoba Initiative. He (or any one of us) certainly has the right to burn a Koran, but to do so is an insensitive dick move that serves no purpose other than to deliberately anger people for no good reason.

    I'm glad that the pastor has reconsidered this stupid idea of his, but I hope this will be food for thought for Rauf and other Muslims: if they continue to do things that they know full well antagonize people of our culture, they can fully expect to get more of this kind of offensive pushback in response. The ball is in their court now.

  • ||

    I'm still not convinced that the outrage over the Burlington Coat Factory Non-Mosque isn't mostly ginned up faux-rage precisely because the media got a hold of Pamela Gellar and her merry band of dipshits, running with their angle.

    Generic America, being a bunch of media-led ovine creatures started thinking "Muslims in NYC? That's unpossible!" (because most hadn't even bothered considering the notion one way or the other). Everything from there was justification for being outraged over something they didn't know the reason why.

    People were ripe for being pissed off about something they thought was black-and-white and could easily understand, so a feedback was generated. Now it's gone global.

  • ||

    From what I hear from normal upstanding New Yorkers - they dont want it. They feel like it is a victory dance on their friends graves. The way the mosque people are acting hasn't done anything to dispell that notion.

    The quran burning asshole is basically the same thing, which is why such unrelated events have become to inextribaly intertwined.

    My spin is just that I hope that Obama sends the FBI down to gainsville to lean on this guy and it gets caught on camera or picked up by the media - I hope for this because I think it might be the only thing that will sink his second term. The moronic GOP certainly wont be able to sink it without Obama himself's help.

  • ||

    And from the neighborhood it will actually be in, they are in favor of it (or at least are not opposed). Some 9/11 families don't feel that it's a "victory dance". Why is a YMCA-like facility a "victory dance" anyway?

    In any case, how have the developers been acting to reinforce the notion? By not answering the equivalent of "when did you stop beating your wife"?

    I think the Quran burning is different in the following way: it is explicitly, no-shit intended to piss people off; the non-mosque's explicit, stated intent is essentially the opposite - it's the "receivers" who are turning it into something else.

    Whether that distinction is important or not depends on the individual, I suppose. Legally speaking, the distinction isn't that important. I personally don't really give a shit if this hayseed wants to burn the Quran. He's a fucktard for doing, for the reasons he's doing it, but that's his prerogative.

    Anyone contemplating violence against him or others with all that knowledge are not only fucktards, but really stupid fucktards, and probably evil fucktards. It takes intelligence and willpower to refuse to be provoked by nonviolent acts to the point of violence.

  • ||

    your probably right about a lot of it - I am just saying what I have heard - I dont personally care.

    The developers have refused to be bought out, dissuaded, etc - just like this preacher. I think the individual stories of what the various fucktards are doing and why are less interesting than the reaction of people in general to the stories as they have been played in the media.

    For me, it seems clear that if Americans were threatening to riot/kill people over the mosque thingy, they would undoubtably be arrested for making threats. However, when some illiterate people in pakistan threaten to kill people over the quran burnings, our week kneed defenders of the constitution line up to condemn the pastor. Nary a word is spoken about the barbarism of wanting to kill someone over the destruction of some paper.

    It is that key difference in our respective cultures that this incident has laid bare for all to see. We are assholes, but civilized. They are assholes, and barbarians.

    The assholes are everywhere. So we have a choice - get rid of every asshole in society who may offend Muslims (I'm thinking Stalin style purges, or at least repressive UK style anti-speech legislation) or we can tell the Islamic world that being offended is a pre-requisite to being a part of a free society. So far, everyone in power - left and right alike has just punted saying "its a bad idea."

    Long term, that's not going to be an answer. Next week someone else will come along who wants to burn qurans, or shit on qurans, or something else even more offensive. They will do it just to provoke a reaction from Islamic countries, or even from our own government if they try to tell us we are not allowed to offend islam anymore.

    This is not going away.

  • ||

    The developers have refused to be bought out, dissuaded, etc - just like this preacher.


    Why do they have an obligation to be bought out or dissuaded? They had no part in 9/11.

    For me, it seems clear that if Americans were threatening to riot/kill people over the mosque thingy, they would undoubtably be arrested for making threats.


    I can certainly agree that if they met the criteria, that would be true.

    However, when some illiterate people in pakistan threaten to kill people over the quran burnings, our week kneed defenders of the constitution line up to condemn the pastor.


    You've hit on some very important distinctions:
    1. Pakistan (for instance)
    2. Illiteracy (general lack of information, or HIGHLY FILTERED information)
    3. Some people

    In America, we have more complete knowledge of the various sides, or at the very least, we have the ability to readily access and process that information should we choose to do so (with some exceptions - our own illiterates, e.g.). Thus, to choose to commit violence based on relatively unbiased aggregate information is indeed egregious. In countries where the media is tightly controlled and the people are kept subservient by lack of education and propaganda, they are dealing with an incomplete grasp of the issues BUT THEY DON'T KNOW THAT, and actually are led to think that they do. Further, the information can be manipulated to encourage certain results.

    Also, in America, we do not have any legal jurisdiction over the actions of Pakistanis in Pakistan, unless said actions occur to our overseas troops, maybe. Thus, applying our sense of legality of "fighting words" or whatever, is a giant non-sequitur when concerning Pakistani goatherds in Pakistan.

    Finally, it ain't everyone, or even nearly everyone. It looks like a large number because media is similar around the world in that regard: loudness, controversy, and violence will be covered, and usually to excess.

    Nary a word is spoken about the barbarism of wanting to kill someone over the destruction of some paper.


    I think it is often considered a given that it is barbaric, assuming that they KNOW it's only about destroying some paper and they have all the information. But if they don't have all the information and if some of that information is manipulated to make it SOUND worse, what then?

    It is that key difference in our respective cultures that this incident has laid bare for all to see. We are assholes, but civilized. They are assholes, and barbarians.


    I think that's the problem: you're starting from the assumption that both cultures are working in the exact same or a very similar paradigm concerning information. That way, they are barbaric and we are civilized, despite the rather large disparity in "tools" for understanding and processing controversial issues.

  • ||

    "Why do they have an obligation to be bought out or dissuaded?"

    They don't, nor did I suggest they did. I said they were not dissuaded, and that fact said something about their motivations.

    "In countries where the media is tightly controlled and the people are kept subservient by lack of education and propaganda, they are dealing with an incomplete grasp of the issues BUT THEY DON'T KNOW THAT, and actually are led to think that they do. Further, the information can be manipulated to encourage certain results."

    Balderdash. Many nations live in tightly controlled media environments and do not riot and kill.

    "Also, in America, we do not have any legal jurisdiction over the actions of Pakistanis in Pakistan, unless said actions occur to our overseas troops, maybe."

    So what? There isn't any legal basis for anyone to do anything to this pastor - but that fact hasn't stopped everyone from Obama to Angelina Jolie from whipping out their poison pens to find words of disgust for this guy. Where are the strongly worded letters of condemnation towards the rioters who are killing people. I guess we are supposed to excuse murder when the perpetrators are ignorant.

    "But if they don't have all the information and if some of that information is manipulated to make it SOUND worse, what then?"

    Unless you are suggesting that the Arab media is telling people that the pastor is burning muslims at the stake - I don't see you point here. We are talking about killing people here - whats worse than that?

    I think we are civilized precisely because the vast majority of people in this country can see this pastor as an asshole - DESPITE the fact that people are threatening violence against him, DESPITE the fact that followers of the quran brought down our towers, and DESPITE the fact that no matter how much tolerance we show muslims in our country, none of it is ever repaid in kind in the islamic world. So yeah, we are civilized to a degree that they cannot even comprehend.

    Being civilized doesn't necessarily guarantee our peace or way of life. We are in a full bore cultural collision, and giving in is not always the best course, nor will it always be appreciated and understood. The latte sipping inteligentsia who have never had a gun pointed at them tend to forget that.

  • ||

    They don't, nor did I suggest they did. I said they were not dissuaded, and that fact said something about their motivations.


    You can divine motivations from that?

    Balderdash. Many nations live in tightly controlled media environments and do not riot and kill.


    And these nations may have media that incites that reaction for whatever reason. Again, lots of it has to do with ignorance, lots with propaganda.

    So what? There isn't any legal basis for anyone to do anything to this pastor - but that fact hasn't stopped everyone from Obama to Angelina Jolie from whipping out their poison pens to find words of disgust for this guy.


    And Obama and Jolie are at the very least wasting their time making matters worse. I'm not disagreeing with you on that.

    Where are the strongly worded letters of condemnation towards the rioters who are killing people.


    I don't know, but I can nearly guarantee you they're coming from people less famous (especially in the US) than Obama or Jolie.

    I guess we are supposed to excuse murder when the perpetrators are ignorant.


    Your turn to beat up strawmen. I never suggested excusing murder.

    Unless you are suggesting that the Arab media is telling people that the pastor is burning muslims at the stake - I don't see you point here. We are talking about killing people here - whats worse than that?


    I don't read Arabic. What I've heard from people who do, it's not uncommon for some very influential and unscrupulous media (and there is a much greater number and variety of them there) to play very hard on Muslim insecurities in order to rage them up. Is it as extreme as "burning Muslims at the stake"? Probably not.

    I think we are civilized precisely because the vast majority of people in this country can see this pastor as an asshole - DESPITE the fact that people are threatening violence against him, DESPITE the fact that followers of the quran brought down our towers, and DESPITE the fact that no matter how much tolerance we show muslims in our country, none of it is ever repaid in kind in the islamic world. So yeah, we are civilized to a degree that they cannot even comprehend.

    Being civilized doesn't necessarily guarantee our peace or way of life.


    I don't really disagree here.

    We are in a full bore cultural collision, and giving in is not always the best course, nor will it always be appreciated and understood.


    What do you mean "giving in"?

  • ||

    "You can divine motivations from that?"

    Sure, the investor/developer of the mosque property was offered a tidy sum to move 5 blocks away - he refused. This means either he isn't after money, or he thinks this is worth more than what he was offerred. I understand it was a tidy profit.. To me that make the former more likely.

    "Your turn to beat up strawmen."

    True, but if it's a strawman to you - it isn't to some people - not those that would rather condemn the non-violent asshole pastor than the violent hordes. Those people are defacto excusing murder, and have as much blood on their hands as the pastor does.

    "What do you mean "giving in"?"

    I mean censoring this pastor, pressuring him to play nice, finding a fire code violation to harass him with, sending the FBI down to lean on him, wringing our hands like a bunch of old women that we might "enrage muslim sentiment," implying that each and every American must do his/her little part by conforming to the PC bullshit that all religions must be revered and respected (if and only if they threaten to kill people). By NOT telling the Islamic world publicly to get over it, that our freedom of expression actually means more to us than freedom from harm and violence.

    Everything I have seen in the media suggests that this will not happen. Either they dont have the balls, or have already decided that they would rather have safety than freedom.

  • ||

    Sure, the investor/developer of the mosque property was offered a tidy sum to move 5 blocks away - he refused. This means either he isn't after money, or he thinks this is worth more than what he was offerred. I understand it was a tidy profit.. To me that make the former more likely.


    Wow, that must make you some sort of witch!

    Did it occur to you that the +25% wouldn't cover the purchase of a NEW property 5 blocks away? You're assuming there's a property ready to go whose opportunity cost would be LESS than what The Donald was willing to put up. I don't think that's been made clear. Thus, I don't think you can say what the intent is, certainly not based on the weak evidence that the sum was "tidy".

    125% may just not be worth it.

    I mean censoring this pastor, pressuring him to play nice,


    I'm with you, so long as you're referring to government attempts to do so. Gates, Obama, whomever, shouldn't be using the force of their titles to persuade the guy of anything, as it implies government force.

    finding a fire code violation to harass him with,


    To be fair, the city ordinance is pretty clear on open burning. I don't think that the ordinance runs afoul of the constitution as long as it violates the provisions of the open burning law locally set.

    Should there even BE an open burning law? Libertarians can argue about that for a while.

    sending the FBI down to lean on him,


    I thought this was only rumored, but if it happened, it's just like the first thing: bullshit.

    wringing our hands like a bunch of old women that we might "enrage muslim sentiment," implying that each and every American must do his/her little part by conforming to the PC bullshit that all religions must be revered and respected (if and only if they threaten to kill people).


    You're getting frustrated. People are arguing about this in the way that an open society does. By exchanging ideas, even if we're calling each other names. Persuasion. Etc. If people are advocating the force of government to stop him (aside from actual fire hazard/open burn issues), they're illiberal assholes and should be condemned as such.

    By NOT telling the Islamic world publicly to get over it, that our freedom of expression actually means more to us than freedom from harm and violence.


    Knock yourself out, dude. Persuade our ambassadors to carry your message far and wide. You won't get much argument from me.

    Everything I have seen in the media suggests that this will not happen. Either they dont have the balls, or have already decided that they would rather have safety than freedom.


    Then take it up with the media and lobby for our ambassadors to repeat your message.

  • ||

    ""From what I hear from normal upstanding New Yorkers - they dont want it.""

    Normal? upstanding? You are talking about NYC.

    New Yorkers, have a range of opinions. It's a mixed bag, some don't like it, some do, some understand that if you build two blocks away you are not building it at.

  • ||

    true - I didn't say ALL New Yorkers - just that some I have talked to oppose it. And they are not right wingers either. People are still pissed that their family and friends were murdered.

  • ||

    Question for those people (and I fully accept that you may not know the answer): why are they pissed AT THESE Muslims? It's pretty fucking clear that they didn't do it, nor would they if given the opportunity. So why do THESE Muslims have a target on them?

  • ||

    I imagine that it's because the actual muslims that perpetrated the attacks of 9/11 are dead and unavailable as a target of rage.

    In addition it has a lot to do with the fact that the general reaction in the muslim world following the attacks was to celebrate and thank allah. Sure, I know that some muslim leaders condemned the attacks publicly, but even then they seemed more concerned about the potential backlash than about the victims, or qualified their statements with something resembling "you had it coming because of your policies."

    Street scenes of jubilation indicated that muslim sentiment was generally supportive. By and large, people who support killing peoples friends and family are seen as enemies, whether they participated or not.

  • ||

    I imagine that it's because the actual muslims that perpetrated the attacks of 9/11 are dead and unavailable as a target of rage.


    So any old Muslim-looking or -acting person will do?

    In addition it has a lot to do with the fact that the general reaction in the muslim world following the attacks was to celebrate and thank allah.


    Wow, this old trope? I know you'll be able to find several media reports of such jubilation. But that's the nature of media, and of the popularity ranking of certain issues reported by the media. In this case, the more shocking thing (celebrations) was more reported on than the less shocking (sympathy, vigils). People want to feed their shock, so they seek out shocking images and stories. The media caters to it, and so it appears that there is more of the shocking than the non-shocking existing in the world. Fact is, people gathering for a silent vigil in their mosque or whatever isn't as photogenic as a bunch of Palestinians shooting AK-47 rounds into the air in glee. People silently or otherwise gathering in their homes feeling shitty sure as hell ain't gonna attract the AP stringer.

    Street scenes of jubilation indicated that muslim sentiment was generally supportive. By and large, people who support killing peoples friends and family are seen as enemies, whether they participated or not.


    Because some people were jubilant over it means that Rauf's congregation was "generally supportive"? Seriously?

  • ||

    You are missing the mark by directing your approbation at me. I started the discussion from the viewpoint that all the agitators involved are assholes.

    you also seem to be missing the point that what were are witnessing here is visceral collision of two widely different cultures that have, at their core, deeply held and diametrically opposeing views over which they are willing to die/kill.

    My point is not to engage in finger pointing over who is right and wrong - both sides are wrong.

    You asked me why people are angry. I told you, proving you with the strawman you so deeply desired to eviscerate. Well thrash away - of course americans are mis-directing their rage which is fueled by sensational media coverage.

    The deeper issue here is that we, as civilized American's are still left with a choice:

    a) curtail our freedoms in order to avoid the violence that will inevitably result from exercising them. Hint: saying "but why can't we all just get along?" isn't the right answer.

    b) Accept violent reactions to various american wingnuts in the islamic world.

    c) Tell the leaders of Muslim and Islamic leaders to enforce law abiding, non-violent behavior in their own countries and that we have freedom of speech in this country which will not be violated no matter how offensive. Tell them that if their local assholes start shooting people, they need to lock them up rather than come whining to us. We will deal with our local assholes appropriatly when - if ever - they do something violent or break a fire code or whatever. Tell the Islamic world that they are not the boss of our citizens - hell - I'd like some brave soul to tell the Islamic world that OUR GOVERNMENT is not the boss of our citizens, and that's exactly what it means to be a free society.

    My view is that unless something along the lines of (c) happens and is accepted by the Islamic world as a fact of life - we are doomed to lose civil liberties and/or suffer violence.

  • mosquerbaiter||

    Recall my response to your original question.

  • ||

    (hehe)

  • ||

    You are missing the mark by directing your approbation at me. I started the discussion from the viewpoint that all the agitators involved are assholes.


    As your responses evolved, they appeared to become your own arguments. If that was not your intent, I apologize. The major things that gave me that impression was the seeming willingness to accept that "the general reaction in the muslim world following the attacks was to celebrate and thank allah" and "Street scenes of jubilation indicated that muslim sentiment was generally supportive" as more facts than misguided arguments.

    you also seem to be missing the point that what were are witnessing here is visceral collision of two widely different cultures that have, at their core, deeply held and diametrically opposeing views over which they are willing to die/kill.


    This is not necessarily lost on me, but I think the key word is "culture" and not necessarily "religion". Tribalism and bedouin (and bedouin-like) culture pre-date Islam.

    You asked me why people are angry. I told you, proving you with the strawman you so deeply desired to eviscerate.


    It's not a strawman, then, is it? It's real, and it's there. People are angry for reasons inexorably tied to their assumptions and preconceived notions.

    I wholeheartedly agree with you on (c). I grant that it will take quite some time for "the Islamic world" to accept most of (c). However, I believe that it will happen and in some cases is happening as we speak, albeit in fits and starts. I posit that the Northwest Frontier Province will take one hell of a lot longer to get there than, say, Beirut, or Doha.

  • ||

    "The major things that gave me that impression was the seeming willingness to accept..."

    I watched all the coverage. After the attacks, I saw SOME media coverage of people rioting, burning flags cheering at the deaths of Americans. These scenes shocked me. When we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, I saw no street scenes in America cheering the deaths of innocents. Tell me if I missed something. I also heard statements of condemnation that ended with "but" meaning they said "but, if America really wants to prevent this, then it needs to adjust its Palestine policy/presence in the muslim world/disrespect of Islam" When our leaders condemn a terrible act, I have never once heard them use it as an opportunity to blame the victim. Again, tell me if I am wrong.

    "Tribalism and bedouin (and bedouin-like) culture pre-date Islam."

    Totally true. Islamic nations that are not primarily herding cultures are typically not NEARLY as extreme. Indonesia is the worlds most populous muslim country.

    "It's not a strawman, then, is it? It's real, and it's there."

    True, but it wasn't like I was saying it was right - just that it was there.

  • ||

    I watched all the coverage. After the attacks, I saw SOME media coverage of people rioting, burning flags cheering at the deaths of Americans. These scenes shocked me. When we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, I saw no street scenes in America cheering the deaths of innocents. Tell me if I missed something.


    1. Americans very much tend not to demonstrate IN FAVOR of something to the same degree as AGAINST something. I don't know if that's cultural or what. Probably is related to the fact that Americans only cheer at sporting events or other gatherings when prompted. This seems uniquely American.
    2. Americans have never spontaneously gathered to cheer a war. This may be in part due to the fact that we are individualistic AND often much too spread out. I'd be willing to bet that plenty of people (but a very small overall percentage) did some private happy dances behind the four walls of their homes. Human nature sometimes overcomes civilization in some people.
    3. There was a lot of pent up animosity in certain places for all things Western. Removed from the realities of place and proximity, it becomes easier for chronically pissed-off people to vent in ways that are shocking to most other people.

    I also heard statements of condemnation that ended with "but" meaning they said "but, if America really wants to prevent this, then it needs to adjust its Palestine policy/presence in the muslim world/disrespect of Islam"


    Sure, there was plenty of that. There was plenty of stuff without the "buts". A sampling from my first Google hit on the subject: http://www.unc.edu/~kurzman/terror.htm

    When our leaders condemn a terrible act, I have never once heard them use it as an opportunity to blame the victim.


    Are you listening for it? I honestly am not sure if that's NEVER been done, or been done to some degree, or been done a lot. I'd be genuinely interested in any research on that.

  • ||

    "1. Americans very much tend not to demonstrate IN FAVOR of something to the same degree as AGAINST something."

    Ok, so you are agreeing with me here, I think.

    "Americans have never spontaneously gathered to cheer a war. "

    Ok so you are agreeing with me again. Of course we don't cheer war. War is hell, which all civilised societies know.

    "There was a lot of pent up animosity in certain places for all things Western. "

    As we are seeing here, there is a lot of pent up animosity over the 9/11 attacks, but even our nuttiest are still burning paper, not people.

    But let's take a look at some of those quotes on your terrorism page:

    "God Almighty says in the Holy Qur'an: 'No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another'"

    So there are other people who should bear the burden of the violence that was dealt on 9/11. Not the innocents, but other people.

    “Beside the fact that they are forbidden by Islam, these acts do not serve those who carried them out but their victims, who will reap the sympathy of the whole world."

    Let's not let Americans get any sympathy, shall we?

    "Islam and Muslims should not be held responsible for such actions."

    more concerned about backlash.

    "Our hearts bleed for the attacks that has targeted the World Trade Center [WTC], as well as other institutions in the United States despite our strong oppositions to the American biased policy towards Israel on the military"

    Poor us.

    "Bombing embassies or destroying non-military installations like the World Trade Center is no jihad"

    But presumably flying a plane into the Pentagon was perfectly fine.

    "“Killing of people, in any place and with any kind of weapons, including atomic bombs, long-range missiles, biological or chemical weopons, passenger or war planes, carried out by any organization, country or individuals is condemned."

    We have our weapons, you have yours.

    "Divergence of views between the Arabs and the United States over the latter’s foreign policy on the Middle East crisis does in no way adversely affect the common Arab attitude of compassion "

    Goes on to explain that if we would only give them what they want, the violence would stop.

    "No political cause could ever be assisted by such immoral acts"

    But our political cause is still very much on our minds at this moment.

    But yeah - many of them were not qualified in any way. Some were.

  • ||

    Ok, so you are agreeing with me here, I think.


    Pretty much.

    Ok so you are agreeing with me again. Of course we don't cheer war. War is hell, which all civilised societies know.


    Pretty much.

    As we are seeing here, there is a lot of pent up animosity over the 9/11 attacks, but even our nuttiest are still burning paper, not people.


    Still with you.

    But let's take a look at some of those quotes on your terrorism page:


    Oh, are you going to cherry pick!

    So there are other people who should bear the burden of the violence that was dealt on 9/11. Not the innocents, but other people.


    Yes, you are! Yay! Full quote: “Such destruction can only be condemned by any Muslim, however resentful one may be of America's biased policies supporting occupation in Palestine, as an unacceptable attack on thousands of innocent people having no relation to American policies. Anyone familiar with Islam has no doubt about its rejection of collective punishment, based on the well-known Quranic principle that 'no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another.'”

    Full quote #2:

    Shaykh Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, spiritual guide of Shi‘i Muslim radicals in Lebanon, said he was “horrified” by these “barbaric ... crimes”:
    “Beside the fact that they are forbidden by Islam, these acts do not serve those who carried them out but their victims, who will reap the sympathy of the whole world. ... Islamists who live according to the human values of Islam could not commit such crimes.”


    He's saying that the acts did not serve the perpetrators as the perpetrators had hoped, but that they would backfire and turn world opinion toward the US. Nice misreading, though. I enjoyed that bit of willful parsing.

    Full quote #3:

    Council of Saudi ‘Ulama', fatwa of February 2003:
    "What is happening in some countries from the shedding of the innocent blood and the bombing of buildings and ships and the destruction of public and private installations is a criminal act against Islam. ... Those who carry out such acts have the deviant beliefs and misleading ideologies and are responsible for the crime. Islam and Muslims should not be held responsible for such actions."


    A call for responsibility on the part of perpetrators, and NOT Islam as a whole, nor ordinary Muslims. Is it concerned with backlash? OK, sure. Is it also intended for the Saudi audience and as a warning against further extremism from within Saudi.

    Full quote #4:

    "Our hearts bleed for the attacks that has targeted the World Trade Center [WTC], as well as other institutions in the United States despite our strong oppositions to the American biased policy towards Israel on the military, political and economic fronts. Islam, the religion of tolerance, holds the human soul in high esteem, and considers the attack against innocent human beings a grave sin, this is backed by the Qur’anic verse which reads: ‘Who so ever kills a human being [as punishment] for [crimes] other than manslaughter or [sowing] corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he has killed all mankind, and who so ever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind’ (Al-Ma’idah:32)."


    Why do you keep truncating things to serve your position? Is there a "but" in there? Yep. But it's not an endorsement of bin Laden's reasoning. It's saying that despite their OWN opposition to our policies, they condemn the acts and stand in sympathy and that the acts are un-Islamic (which is a notion backed by scripture as cited).

    Full quote #5:

    Tahirul Qadri, head of the Awami Tehrik Party, Pakistan:
    "Bombing embassies or destroying non-military installations like the World Trade Center is no jihad. ... "[T]hose who launched the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks not only killed thousands of innocent people in the United States but also put the lives of millions of Muslims across the world at risk. ... Bin Laden is not a prophet that we should put thousands of lives at risk for."


    Forgive the man for only thinking of the most iconic and visible when coming up with EXAMPLES. Are you similarly pissed that he didn't mention the field in Shanksville for absolute completeness in his statement condemning bin Laden?

    You finally quoted one in full! It's from Ayatollah Khamene'i, who is a world-class asshole. The basic truth of his statement isn't inconsistent, but your standards of "but" statements show this to be somewhat insensitive. Score one for you.

    Goes on to explain that if we would only give them what they want, the violence would stop.


    Oh, Christ...

    Full quote here: http://www.leagueofarabstates......_09_01.asp

    Your characterization is extremely uncharitable.

    Full quote # whatever:

    Syed Mumtaz Ali, President of the Canadian Society of Muslims:
    “We condemn in the strongest terms possible what are apparently vicious and cowardly acts of terrorism against innocent civilians. We join with all Canadians in calling for the swift apprehension and punishment of the perpetrators. No political cause could ever be assisted by such immoral acts.”


    Are you even trying anymore?

  • Leroy||

    RRRAAAACCCCIIISSSTTTT!!!

    Why do you think the brown people can't figure out when the media is feeding them propaganda but the Americans can?

    "In countries where the media is tightly controlled and the people are kept subservient by lack of education and propaganda, they are dealing with an incomplete grasp of the issues BUT THEY DON'T KNOW THAT"

    - From your post above, arguing that Muslims are not responsible for their actions due to the propaganda.

    "I know you'll be able to find several media reports of such jubilation. But that's the nature of media, and of the popularity ranking of certain issues reported by the media. In this case, the more shocking thing (celebrations) was more reported on than the less shocking (sympathy, vigils)."

    - You arguing that Americans should be able to see through the propaganda and form unbiased opinions.

    Now answer me this... Why is it that you attribute the ability to see through the propaganda, but not the Arabs?

    The fact remains that people are responsible for their actions, and that engaging in violence over offensive speech is barbaric, regardless of the race/religion/nationality of the perps.

  • ||

    word

  • ||

    Why do you think the brown people can't figure out when the media is feeding them propaganda but the Americans can?


    1. Americans writ large don't necessarily do a good job of it. But they have much more tools with which to try.
    2. The "brown people" don't have the same tradition of open and free press and usually have a culture that relies on word of mouth, which ends up like the telephone game pretty often. The "brown people" are also quite often illiterate and/or un- or under-educated, meaning they don't or can't apply their own filters to information they get from highly controlled sources or word-of-mouth. This is how the rural cultures of the region work. The Bedouin of the Arabian Peninsula as recently as 50 years ago scarcely had a CONCEPT of any sort of life outside the Empty Quarter. Certain societies in those sorts of cultures were not aware of WWII AT ALL. Now they are bombarded with media. They're still catching up. There's no value judgment here. That's just the facts of many of the cultures that tend to react violently.

    From your post above, arguing that Muslims are not responsible for their actions due to the propaganda.


    False. Propaganda can explain, in part, their actions. It doesn't absolve them of responsibility for them. On the other hand, their governments/tribes/leaders often don't impose on them responsibilities, often purposely. So what domo describes in his scenario (c) above needs to take place.

    You arguing that Americans should be able to see through the propaganda and form unbiased opinions.


    I'm arguing that they SHOULD. They often don't, but they do more often than those with less education, literacy and tradition of free press.

    Now answer me this... Why is it that you attribute the ability to see through the propaganda, but not the Arabs?


    I'm not strictly speaking about "the Arabs", since this exists throughout the Middle East and South Asia in places. I covered why segments of these populations are less able to do so above.

    The fact remains that people are responsible for their actions


    This is uncontroversial.

  • Leroy||

    You can't have it both ways Timon.

    "Fact is, people gathering for a silent vigil in their mosque or whatever isn't as photogenic as a bunch of Palestinians shooting AK-47 rounds into the air in glee. People silently or otherwise gathering in their homes feeling shitty sure as hell ain't gonna attract the AP stringer."

    So here you argue that not all Muslims were thrilled about the attacks. In fact it seems as if you're trying to say that the silent vigils were as common or more common than dancing in the streets after 9/11, but just didn't attract the media so we did not hear about it.

    "The "brown people" don't have the same tradition of open and free press and usually have a culture that relies on word of mouth, which ends up like the telephone game pretty often. The "brown people" are also quite often illiterate and/or un- or under-educated, meaning they don't or can't apply their own filters to information they get from highly controlled sources or word-of-mouth."

    And here you argue that these same people just do not have access to the information or the ability to make an informed decision about it.

    So my next question would be, are they mis-informed, unintelligent, and unable to come to the conclusion that violence is bad, or are they well enough informed to make a rational evaluation of the situation and come to their own conclusions?

    If they are holding silent vigils etc, it would seem the latter, however in your recent post it seems you are arguing the former.

    This type of logic leads to the victim mentality. 'They are just poor, uninformed, uneducated people and don't know any better.'

  • ||

    You said normal and upstanding New Yorkers.

    Yeah, not all right wingers either, but mostly. I know a couple of leftys that take issue. But a lot of NYers understand that Islam didn't murder their friends and families. Assholes did. Islam is all over the place in NYC so we, for the most part, are not offended by their presence. And naturally you can expect the emotionally wounded to be extra sensitive. It's understandable.

    You can mark me in the NYers that do not oppose it catagory. Just don't call me normal or upstanding, ;-)

  • ||

    Most people use the term ground zero but they don't really know what area it covers. It's basically the space between Vesey, Church, West and Liberty streets. Maybe you could go further south to Albany st.

    If you were a tourist and wanted to see ground zero and I took you to Park Pl. You would be mad because you didn't get to see ground zero.

  • ||

    I thought Ground Zero was in Hiroshima.

  • ||

    By the by...what is "our culture"?

  • Mike M.||

    It's the exact same thing as what you contemptuously label as "Generic America".

  • ||

    So we're all homogenized into "Generic America"? How about that!

  • DADIODADDY||

    fuck the koran, let's burn a muslim...see how they like them apples.

  • Mosquevite Sandwich||

    Well, how about some good, if not grand, newz!?

    Obama is having a new conference (finally) and is expected to focus on the economy. If that doesn't instill some confidence in the country, I don't know what will!!!

    I can't wait. Reason should live blog such an occasion.

  • hmm||

    Candid Camera, Iraqi style.

    We have a version of this. It's called SWAT raids for pot.

  • Brett L||

    Fewer dogs are killed in the Iraqi version.

  • ||

    Bad ideas never die

    For many people, the trade deficit seems unrelated to the nation’s continued economic crisis. But it is actually a central reason why American growth has lagged and President Obama’s stimulus hasn’t led to a robust recovery: since February 2009, the government has injected $512 billion into the American economy, but during roughly the same period, the trade deficit leaked about $602 billion out of it and into foreign markets.

    Consequently, a successful recovery strategy will require aggressive measures to reduce the trade deficit — including new and expanded tariffs to encourage the sale of domestic goods over imports and a serious reindustrialization policy to create the manufacturing strength to exploit these new opportunities.

    Also: punish the evil yellow currency manipulators!

    Playing the roles of Messrs Smoot and Hawley:

    Alan Tonelson, a fellow at the United States Business and Industry Council, is the author of “The Race to the Bottom.” Kevin L. Kearns is the president of the council, which is an association of small manufacturers.

  • ||

    the government has injected $512 billion into the American economy, but during roughly the same period, the trade deficit leaked about $602 billion out of it and into foreign markets.

    And how much of that money came right back to buy the bonds necessary to inject the money in the first place?

    What a tard.

  • ||

    turns out those who don't learn from history are actually doomed to repeat it. that's not just a cliche, an old chestnut, a turn of phrase. the world really does work that way.

    Shit.

  • Virginia||

    Yep, the EU slapped tariffs on our biodiesel. We're tariffing Chinese tires. Our lead toy regulations are blocking out Euro toy makers. Rinse/repeat.

    Alan Tonelson, a fellow at the United States Business and Industry Council, is the author of “The Race to the Bottom.”

    That title is very appropriate, but not in the way Alan Tonelson thinks.

  • ||

    These steps would revolutionize American trade policy. They would require suspending some international trade obligations Washington has spent years fighting for. But in such perilous economic times, trade-policy conventions can hardly remain sacrosanct. Otherwise, imports will continue to sabotage the recovery.

    Gosh, could this be a reference to NAFTA?

  • ||

    Otherwise, imports will continue to sabotage the recovery.

    Because nothing fucks up your economy like being able to buy goods as cheaply as possible.

  • alan||

    From my local fishwrap, a letter to the editor this morning.

    http://www.news-record.com/con.....te_bigotry

    Dana Reynolds’ rebuttal (Sept. 8) of Kathleen Parker’s article about Glenn Beck was a joke. She claims she is not left or right and that is another joke.

    Beck and Sarah Palin preach as though they have the right to criticize everything that does not agree with their politics.
    They preach hate but deny it, and all you have to do is listen to them on Fox News and you get the picture in a flash.

    If you do not agree with them, Reynolds is willing to pay your fare to leave the country. In other words, if you do not agree with bigotry you are not a good American.

    Rachel Maddow,
    Siler City

    (name and sex changed to protect the stupid from themselves)

  • Cliché Bandit||

    HOLY CRAP! This is AWESOME!
    Stump speech from HELL!

    WTF!

  • Nike Dunk Shoes||

    thanks

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