A.M. Links: Bitcoin Debit Card to Launch, Drone Strike in Pakistan Kills 16, Nothing Unusual About Antarctica’s Temperature

Don’t forget to sign up for Reason’s daily AM/PM updates for more content.

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.

  • Brett L||

    Tulpa's greatest fears come true.

    Witnesses said the shooting occurred following a dispute between food cart vendors who were arguing over a spot. Investigators said the alleged shooter owns a water stand in the concourse area.

  • ||

    Have you noticed the coincidental dropoff in anonypussying and griefing that has coincidentally coincided with his absence? How coincidental.

  • Brett L||

    I figured the troll has been in his/her dunphy phase lately.

  • RBS||

    I thought maybe he was busy redesigning his blog.

  • ||

    He deleted his gay little blog. Which is, of course, DELICIOUS.

  • RBS||

    Damn, I was waiting for Tulpamania to sweep over the internet.

  • Bee Tagger||

    Was there a precipitating event? I don't seem to recall any threads recently that saw him particularly freaking out.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    A prescription for lithium was finally given?

  • SugarFree||

    He's off designing his utopia where freedom comes from being followed and frisked by the cops all day and it's OK for them to murder you for whatever reason.

    Land of the free, indeed.

  • sloopyinca||

    I think SugarFree is on to something.

    Either that or he's busy mock drafting like crazy in anticipation of the Second Annual Reason Hit AND Run J sub D Memorial Fantasy Football League Draft, which is tomorrow at 3 pm PDT.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Is Colt McCoy taken? 'Cause a Browns fan told me yesterday that young Colt is lookin' pretty good. True story.
    (I almost feel sorry making fun of Browns fans. Almost.)

  • SugarFree||

    Colt McCoy? Did his parents want him to grow up to be a gay stripper?

  • Citizen Nothing||

    At this point, I think he'd probably have more success as a gay stripper than as an NFL quarterback. NTTAWWT.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Either that or he's busy mock drafting like crazy

    I can't do it man. I need a life! I'm currently trying to resist caving to FF with a free league with a $1000 prize pool from a radio promotion.

  • RBS||

    We need one more in the You Didn't Build That league.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    But I'll get sucked in and never do anything outside of football and engineering again!

    I'm already committed to having no Sundays free for 5 months.

  • sloopyinca||

    Just join the fucking league already. 20 minutes a week, man. Do your roster while you're taking a shit on Wednesday at work. It's not rocket science.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I've never seen anyone do fantasy football and only invest 20 minutes a week.

    Also I'm not available tomorrow evening for the draft. Meeting the girlfriend's parents for dinner.

  • sloopyinca||

    Meeting the girlfriend's parents for dinner.

    If her father's worth his salt, he'll understand why you brought a laptop and sneak away every time it goes "Ping!"

  • Auric Demonocles||

    He's a Giants fan.

  • sloopyinca||

    Then I guess you won't be talking much shit, will you?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    About their highly overrated quarterback or their actually good defensive line? No, I'm going to avoid the topic of sports altogether.

  • RBS||

    Their highly overrated QB with two rings?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I'm talking about the guy who threw 25 interceptions in a single season.

  • sloopyinca||

    What do Charlie Conerly or Frank Filchock have to do with anything?

  • Rasilio||

    Send me an invite

  • sloopyinca||

    Look down a couple of comments. That goes for any others on here that want to play.*

    *I reserve the right to remove anyone that I hate from the league or sabotage their roster at any time necessary throughout the season.

  • Cavpitalist||

    Still? I'd love to get in. I only have 6 pro leagues and 3 college right now.

  • SFC B||

    3 Pacific is midnight in Germany. I'm going to be happiest drafter there!

  • sloopyinca||

    Go here.

    League ID: 457394
    Password: reason

    Come on, people. It's time to step up.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Come on, people. It's time to step up.

    I am glad to see I can just use a google account instead of a Yahoo account. However, I'm still not convinced I won't spend hours a week checking stats. Other concerns are that I won't be available during the draft and I don't really understand the FF points system. Apparently you actually care about running backs? WTF is with that?

  • sloopyinca||

    Autodraft is a wonderful thing. And I'm making it a free trade league with no waiver wire. It should be pretty easy to get a roster setup done while your yammering away at me right now.

    FFS, man. DO IT!!!!!!!!

  • Auric Demonocles||

    So I just quickly checked out that site and for the 2009 draft the top 11 players were all running backs. That makes no sense!

  • RBS||

    So people went RB crazy in 09. Who cares? A good RB can get you a ton of points. The year Shaun Alexander broke the season TD record he single handedly won my league for me.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    My point is that RBs should barely matter at all, so fantasy football scoring is messed up.

  • RBS||

    Why should RB's barely matter? That doesn't make any sense given that RB's are involved in about 50% of offensive plays called.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    You're telling me that if you're about to open a new NFL franchise, you are starting your focus with the running back?

  • RBS||

    One, that doesn't even answer my question as to why RB's should barely matter for fanatasy football. Two, if I can't get a Drew Brees or a Tom Brady like QB I could do a lot worse than planning my offense around the most productive RB's in the league.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    One, that doesn't even answer my question as to why RB's should barely matter for fanatasy football.

    Yes it does, assuming fantasy football should remotely resemble actual football. The fantasy football points formula is stupid if it rewards running this heavily.

    Two, if I can't get a Drew Brees or a Tom Brady like QB I could do a lot worse than planning my offense around the most productive RB's in the league.

    I'd much rather take a top 16 QB than a top 3 RB.

  • RBS||

    So you want fantasy football, which is driven by stats, to ignore half of any given team's offensive production?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    So you want fantasy football, which is driven by stats, to ignore half of any given team's offensive production?

    No, I don't want them to inflate the stats of the less important half of the offense. The reason's league rules give 50% more points for a scoring TD and 2.5 more points for a rushing yard.

    I just looked at some 2011 stats. The top 5 passing teams (in terms of yards) that year had 4/5 of the top 5 offense teams (in terms of yards). They also had 4/5 of the top scoring teams (the actual point of an offense).

    From the top 5 rushing teams (in terms of yards), only one (#5) was in the top 5 offensive teams. Only one of these teams was in the top 5 scoring teams, and their QB also threw for 4000 yards.

  • RBS||

    Ok, look at your stats again and see if you can think of a reason why a league might reward a solid RB performance.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    So you're now admitting that it's not that I want them to "ignore half of any team's offensive production", and that the actual current case is "rewarding" RBs?

    I just think the fantasy football rules should reflect the actual league, and not act like this is the 60's.

  • RBS||

    I am not convinced you even understand the concept of fantasy football.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Now you're just being a dick. I'm saying the way the concept is generally implemented is silly. I realize that fantasy is part of the name, but that doesn't mean it should have no connection to the actual way football is played.

  • Rasilio||

    The main difference is value over replacement.

    While top RB's and QB's tend to score about the same number of total points average QB's consistantly outscore average RB's.

    So that makes QB's more important right?

    Well no, not in a 12 team league at least.

    Problem is that you only need 12 - 16 "starting caliber" QB's in a 12 team league but the gap between the 5th and 15th best QB's in the league is maybe 2 points a game.

    With RB's you need around 40 of them who are good enough to appear in a starting lineup at some point in the season but the gap between the 10th best RB and the 30th best is closer to 7 or 8 points a game.

    You waste a 1st or 2nd round pick on Brees, Brady, or Rodgers and get your 2nd RB/WR in the 4th and 5th rounds where you're gambling that Michael Turner has 1 more year in the tank and Percy Harvin can stay healthy.

    Meanwhile I'll pick up 2 RB's and 2 WR's in the first 4 rounds and have something like Jamaal Charles and Julio Jones at #2 RB/WR and still be able to pick between Ryan, Vick, and Romo in the 5th round.

    Which 3 are better Brees, Turner, and Harvin or Charles, Jones, and Ryan?

    The problem is not that QBs score too little or RB's score too much, it is that there are too many good QB's for your typical league.

    Expand it to a 20 team league and you'll see 3 or 4 QB's off the board in the first round and another 3 - 4 in the second round because no one wants to be looking at Carson Palmer to lead their team to victory.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Rasilio makes a good argument. My only issue with that becomes the idea of fetishizing stats in general. A ton of RB touchdowns are goal-line rushes, which most RBs can make anyway. So they end up being more of a product of the rest of the offense being able to get your close but not in, then being the guy who gets the rock, then actually you having a big impact on the game.

    This is the same reason I think QB rushing touchdowns are overrated. A ton of those could be scored exactly the same just handing off to some 4th round guy who you're only paying $500k.

  • RBS||

    My only issue with that becomes the idea of fetishizing stats in general

    That's what FF is all about. That's why it's fantasy.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    It's called fantasy because you can't afford to actually buy a team and try to run one.

    FF isn't "all about" fetishizing stats. That's something that just happens as a consequence of trying to combine together players on a bunch of different teams into a fantasy "team". You end up having to use stats because your players don't actually get to play against the players of that week's fantasy opponents.

    Regardless, Rasilio actually provided a decent argument in favor of a system that places value on RBs, and since you seem to be refusing to do so, I'm out.

  • RBS||

    It's called fantasy because you can't afford to actually buy a team and try to run one.

    No shit.

    I thought Rasilio's argument was good and didn't think I could expand on it. I can see why you would be worried about spending more than 20 minutes a week on FF though.

  • sloopyinca||

    Listen, you motherfuckers. Just join the league and see whose plan is better.

    Jesus Christ!!!!!! JOIN THE FUCKING LEAGUE ALREADY.

  • Rasilio||

    I tried, like an hour before you posted this and it told me the league was full.

    Is it still not full? If not have you got it set up so only people invited can join?

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Some of us have lives, Warty.

  • Jerry on the road||

    On Thursday night, Coleman’s family visited the precinct where he was being held and said the ordained minister had to have been pushed to the edge to ever use a weapon.

    When people cling to guns and religion...

  • free2booze||

    I thought guns were illegal in NYC?

    Multiple people have been shot and at least one killed in a shooting near the Empire State Building.
  • Mike M.||

    A TEA Partier did it!!
    -The media

  • wareagle||

    The NAACP of Colorado-Wyoming-Montana

    okay, I'll admit to being surprised the organization even exists in two of those states.

  • ||

    I'm sure most of the members in Montana are white.

  • Quetzalcoatl||

    There's a reason if covers all three.

  • wareagle||

    yes, and the reason is that two of those states have no need for it.

  • Pip||

    yes, and the reason is that two of those all states have no need for it.

  • Bobarian||

    There should be no state that needs it.

  • Jack-it||

    You know Indians(Native Americans, redskins) are colored.
    And I think Shaq has a ranch in Montana.

  • ||

    Do not go gentle into that good night: Drug-smuggling granny 'did it to stay active'

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    FUCK. YES.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    New data suggests Antarctica is not unusually warm after all.

    A frigid bitch AND a liar.

  • Brett L||

    Backup for my previously stated claim that TS Isaac just be that bad.

  • Quetzalcoatl||

    He just be that bad?
    Is he one bad mutha-SHUTYOURMOUTH?

  • Brett L||

    Fuck me. This is why I need a working preview button, squirrels! Insert "might not" between "just" and "be".

    Funny enough, Q, I lost the might not trying (and failing) to work that joke in.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Why the fuck do you not have a preview button? I do.

    Of course inline pics and youtube via reasonable is a bit squirrelly at the moment. Pics don't show at all, and youtube videos sometimes show and sometimes not.

  • mr simple||

    They sound disappointed.

  • Brett L||

    Most of his quotes are from the Weather Channel, which feeds vampirically on the pain of people affected by weather disasters. So yeah, its Dracula finding out his date for the night is anemic.

  • Mike M.||

    Whoa, 21 years for murdering 77 people in cold blood? Seems a little on the low side, doesn't it? I guess life is pretty cheap in Norway.

  • ||

    Norway has a 21 year maximum for murder. Doesn't matter how many, or how bad. I learnt that from reading Lords of Chaos

  • wareagle||

    the system can tack on more years if he is presumed to still be a danger. Makes you wonder, though - what does someone have to do in Norway to be considered a permanent danger unworthy of ever breathing free again.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    what does someone have to do in Norway to be considered a permanent danger unworthy of ever breathing free again.

    Probably run a company, employ people, and bitch about how the government makes it difficult for you to do either of those things.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    People do that in Norway. Just not very many. They're mostly too busy being economically retarded in regards to their oil fund being the beginning and end of their socialist utopia.

    Note the answer to the question "Are we nekro?".

  • Quetzalcoatl||

    Hopefully the callous killing of 77 people , the majority of them teens, qualifies.

    But I am inherently uncomfortable with the idea that a prisoner can be held indefinitely once they've served their sentence.

  • ||

    Well sure. But I don't get why they resist sentencing someone to Life.

  • Randian||

    For the same reason we resist drawing and quartering people.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Are you drawing an equivalence between the two, or saying a Norwegian would do so?

  • Randian||

    Neither. I am saying that both are against the law, likely using the same rationales.

  • wareagle||

    But I don't get why they resist sentencing someone to Life.

    this is what happens when you view others through your own prism. Come on, this happens all the time. The left is always saying the US should do something because the rest of the world does. Different places, different rules.

  • ||

    Different places, different rules.

    So what. I don't have to accept someone else's rules at face value. If they can make a reasoned argument that I accept, then that's one thing. As is...

    I DON'T GET IT

  • Mike M.||

    I am curious as to what their rationale is for having the legal system work this way. It sure seems to me like a rather... unusual way of administering justice.

  • Rasilio||

    My understanding is that they have an actual justice system and not a penal system.

    In Norway the goal of prison is not to punish you although punishment is part of it, the punishment is not the goal but rather a part of the process, the goal is to reform you and to return you to society as a healthy functioning member.

    Now why they picked the magic number of 21 years for a maximum sentence I don't know but obviously their rationale was that if you could not be successfully rehabilitated in that time there was no need to further the sentence and they could just keep you locked up as an ongoing danger to society.

  • Mike M.||

    I understand what you're saying, but personally, I have a LOT of doubts about the true ability of psychiatric experts and government bureaucrats to be able to tell whether a violent criminal is truly "rehabilitated" or not.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    At least it isn't guaranteed he'll be out in 21 years.

    But wtf, if he's declared rehabilitated that will mean he only served 3/10 of a year for every person he murdered. And after 21 years he'll be 54, still plenty of time left to enjoy life.

    By your 77th murder, I think that retribution trumps rehabilitation. Even if Norway isn't into the death penalty, a genuine life sentence seems called for here, even if he sees the error of his ways (and how could we know for certain?)

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Incidentally, sentences like this are why people support the death penalty. An enforceable death penalty means that after 21 years, the relevant questions in his case will be about properly maintaining his grave, not whether to release him back into the community.

    That's why death penalty opponents in the US support life without parole - so juries won't say fuck it, with this fucking parole system the only way to keep him off the streets is to kill him.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Truth be told, they don't have that many violent felons in Norway. In the most recent year with reported statistics, they had a whole 31. Chicago has more than that over an average weekend.

    And their gun laws aren't nearly as onerous as one might think. They have registration and all that BS, but their numbers are pretty high.

  • ||

    I would have expected at least a mild Blood Eagle.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Isn't that the part of Europe where everyone kills themselves anyway due to lack of sunlight or because of S.A.D. or whatever?

  • The Craig||

    Oh but they are so humane to mass murderers. It must be a wonderful place to live!

  • SugarFree||

    He's also going to get three 78 sq. ft. cells to chillax in.

  • sloopyinca||

    If I were Brevik, I'd appeal to the UN Human Rights Commission. If he was found guilty of 77 murders, he's entitled to 77 cells.

    That's 6006 square feet (or 558 square "meters" as our Canuckistani and European pals would say). That would probably make it the largest residence in Europe not lived in by a royal.

  • Bobarian||

    I think they spell it metres, or some silly shit like that.

  • ||

  • Quetzalcoatl||

    Well they can just take the mattresses off the walls and put them back on the other inmates' beds.

  • RBS||

    Mr. Breivik your twenty one years up and you are free to go. Unfortunately, our psychiatric team has determined that you are quite insane, therefore you will be moved into the psychiatric ward until you are fit to return to society.

  • Jerry on the road||

  • Lord Peter Wimsey||

    He was actually sentenced to 10 to 21 years. He could technically be eligible for parole in 10 years. That's a freakin' ridiculous sentence for someone who killed 77 people.
    It's easy to say that he has zero chance of parole short of 21 years, but any country that would only sentence Hitler to 21 years might be nuckin' futz enough to let the guy out after govt. psychs give the thumbs up.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    To be fair you can get up to 30 years for "crimes against humanity." So there's that.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Aerating 77 people falls under a crime against humanity in my book.

  • Copernicus||

    I wonder how many years you get if guilty of hate speech, like observing that Islam is a silly religion, etc.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    A fine and up to three years in prison.

  • Metazoan||

    But Norway does have a lower crime rate and lower recidivism rate. I'm just saying, conventional reasoning in the US may be BS on this issue. Not many people stop and think about harsh penalties before committing a crime- it may not be a good deterrent. Norway's system is, by and large, focused on rehab and public safety. How does that not make more sense?

  • Rasilio||

    It does make more sense and one is surprised that a bunch of people always harping about living in a police state don't recognize that.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Some people are more concerned with Norway being a socialist utopia built on a house of cards than they are about anything else. Because it is socialist, it must be bad.

    Don't get me wrong, the people of Norway are economically retarded, and their socialist utopia is fine and dandy now, but when their oil fund starts to suffer because of market conditions, it will crumble. Their taxes are stupid high, and everything is insanely expensive even before their stupid taxes (but that's more a result of living on the very edge of civilization than being socialist). That said, there is a borglike nature to their society. The housing market is fucked, not because prices are too low, but because the government has decided that building single-family homes is "less efficient" and "less environmentally friendly" than condo/apartment living, and therefore building new single family homes is monumentally expensive and takes multiple bureaucratic moves to get done. But even worse than that is they've constrained supply, making existing single family homes FUCKING EXPENSIVE.

    But all in all, it's not that bad a place. Crime is low. People are nice. The metal is awesome.

    At least 2 of those 3 are destined to change, however, when their oil fund crashes (and it will at some point), and I'll bet it's not their awesome metal.

  • Invisible Finger||

    What do police in Norway get for murder?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Another drone strike in Pakistan kills 16. We have always been at war with Eastasia!

    .

    Doesn't actually work when referencing a grinding 10 year occupation.

  • Fluffy||

    We aren't supposed to be occupying Pakistan.

  • John||

    Neither are the Taliban. If they are a attacking us from Pakistan, we have every right to attack them.

  • Jerry on the road||

    Those billions in military aid to Pakistan sure pay off.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    We would have gained more by making a giant bonfire of those billions - at least it would have been a show - instead we might as well given a blank check to the ISI.

  • db||

    I *love* the money fires!

  • gaijin||

    John, would Mexico haave the right to strike drug smugglers in Texas who came and went over the border?

  • wareagle||

    I think Eric Holder already answered that question, albeit covertly, by arming the Mexican smugglers.

  • John||

    Yes. If we did nothing to control them, they absolutely would. They would have to give us the chance to do it first. But if drug gangs were operating out of Texas and waging a guerrilla war against Mexico and we were unable to control them, the Mexicans would have every right to act in self defense.

    And don't think for a moment the Pakistani government doesn't know about this and isn't happy to see it happen. They don't want to deal with the militants anymore than we do. They just can't admit it publicly.

  • R C Dean||

    But if drug gangs were operating out of Texas and waging a guerrilla war against Mexico and we were unable to control them, the Mexicans would have every right to act in self defense.

    True enough. From what I can tell, though, the Mexican drug gangs, which are waging a guerrilla war against the Mexican government, don't use the US as a safe haven. They're actually fairly careful (for Mexican drug gangs) to keep the nasty in Mexico.

  • wareagle||

    so FF is really the US plan to fund one side of what could be viewed as a civil war in Mexico. Unless there is a separate gun-running operation that benefits the Mexican govt or military. Not being argumentative, just thinking out loud (which is not always a good thing).

  • VG Zaytsev||

    It's been observed before that the US government sending arms to the drug gangs in Mexico is an act of war under international law.

    Doesn't mean that Mexico has the ability or desire to respond appropriately.

    But what do you think the US would do if Iran was sending arms to militia groups that had killed tens of thousands of people in the US?

  • John||

    Yes, Mexico if they were a great power and in a bad enough mood to go to war with the US would have had every right to declare war on the US over FF or at the very least demand the US extradite the perpetrators to Mexico and pay Mexico compensation.

    Mexico has every right to demand that Eric Holder and the various people involved stand trial in Mexico.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    They're in no position to go to war but they could publicly indict Holder.

    I'd love to see that btw.

  • sloopyinca||

    Yes, Mexico if they were a great power and in a bad enough mood to go to war with the US would have had every right to declare war on the US over FF

    Why would they need to declare war? Couldn't they just say they are at war with drug runners and drop bombs all over the US, Canada, various Central American nations and the entire Caribbean region with impunity? It appears that that type of nebulous declaration is OK when we do it.

  • ||

    Does Mexico have an bombers and an air force?

  • KDN||

    A whopping 10 F-5 fighter/bombers.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Air_Force

  • Pip||

    Yes they do and they are at the ready.

    http://www.millerwelds.com/int.....4_350w.jpg

  • Bobarian||

    'They're actually fairly careful (for Mexican drug gangs) to keep the nasty in Mexico.'

    Smart thinking, because drone strikes would work pretty good in Mexico, too.

  • Rasilio||

    "But if drug gangs were operating out of Texas and waging a guerrilla war against Mexico and we were unable to control them, the Mexicans would have every right to act in self defense"

    If?

    I didn't realize there was much of a question on this front, except for the fact that the drug gangs stay mostly on the Mexican side

  • Fluffy||

    Oh, sure.

    I'm just pointing out that VG's objection to the joke isn't sound.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    That 'joke' has become the equivalent to fascism as used by the left.

    IE something the user doesn't like.

    Using it as done here, is a sign of lazy, sloppy thinking.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Yeah. That's like something Hitler would do.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    We aren't supposed to be occupying Pakistan.

    Since when?

    That quip is about changing a major policy on a dime and pretending that the recent past never happened.

    It's overused and doesn't fit here.

  • Fluffy||

    Sure it does.

    We have taken to simply declaring that anyone we want to bomb, anywhere, is 'Al Qaeda' and/or 'the Taliban'.

    I expect that some day we'll be bombing Canada or Antarctica and declaring anyone hit by a bomb 'Al Qaeda'.

    If anything, that's even more Orwellian than Oceania's conduct. If Oceania hadn't even bothered to tear their posters and street banners down and put up new ones, but had just swapped out the names of the other two powers on their maps instead, they too could work as spokesmen for the Obama White House.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    We have taken to simply declaring that anyone we want to bomb, anywhere, is 'Al Qaeda' and/or 'the Taliban'.

    Again, nothing related to Orwell's point with that phrase.

    Which was totalitarian's attempted control of the past and all thought.

    No one, that is sentient, is surprised by drone strikes on Pakistan because they've been happening on a regular basis for many years.

    It would be an appropriate reference if the US droned Israel or Britain or Japan as that would be attacking an enemy today that was an ally yesterday.

  • Fluffy||

    Actually, the point was that by the practice of doublethink, whatever the Party told the populace was the truth about the war became the truth about the war.

    So if they decided to switch from fighting Eurasia to fighting Eastasia, and claimed that Eastasia had always been the enemy, the populace would comport its thinking and beliefs to fit the new reality.

    That absolutely is applicable to declaring any random group of Pakistani tribal militants we want to kill 'the Taliban'. Because whether they're 'the Taliban' or not, as soon as the White House says that they are, we're all supposed to comport our own thinking to the label, and we're supposed to bay for the blood of our eternal enemy.

    If any random bunch of Yemenis and Somalians can be transformed into 'Al Qaeda' by our propaganda machine, there's no reason that we can't drone Israel or Britain or Japan tomorrow on the same basis.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    If any random bunch of Yemenis and Somalians can be transformed into 'Al Qaeda' by our propaganda machine...

    Just like any random group of Germans in the 1940s were transformed in NAZIs by FDRs propaganda machine.

    Serious question:

    Is you obtuseness mentally taxing or does it come naturally to you?

  • RBS||

    Just like any random group of Germans in the 1940s were transformed in NAZIs by FDRs propaganda machine.

    Congratulations on proving Fluffy's point.

  • ||

    Just like any random group of Germans in the 1940s were transformed in NAZIs by FDRs propaganda machine.

    Do you even realize how stupid you are?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Actually, the point was that by the practice of doublethink, whatever the Party told the populace was the truth about the war became the truth about the war.

    FIFY

    The point was mind control by the party not the immorality of war.

    Look - It's self evident in the phrase itself:

    We've always been at war with East Asia. Where always beens directly contradicts the fact that they were allies with East Asia yesterday.

    Serious question:

    Is you obtuseness mentally taxing or does it come naturally to you?

  • ||

    Do you even understand the reference?

  • John||

    Does Reason? We haven't always been at war with anyone.

  • ||

    Obviously you don't get it either...
    In Orwell's 1984, the state run propaganda machine was constantly changing news articles and reports to give people the impression that they were always at war with Eastasia when the protagonist knew full well that they were not at war with them before. We are not at war with Pakistan...yet we constantly get reports about airstrikes in Pakistan and no one questions it. Are you really that dense or have you simply never read 1984?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    We are not at war with Pakistan...yet we constantly get reports about airstrikes in Pakistan and no one questions it.

    Which has been happening now for 8, 10 years.

    Now if we used drones against Israel, the reference would be appropriate. Not so much, when attacking people in a country, whose sovereignty everybody knows we've been ignoring for a decade.

  • ||

    You're a fucking idiot too. The point is we shouldn't be ignoring their sovereignty and we have never officially declared war on them... in fact in the past we've gone out of our way to deny what's happening there... My God...you're all a bunch of illiterate fucks that are about to make my head explode. Obviously Ed's reference to 1984 was above your head... schmuck

  • VG Zaytsev||

    You obviously don't understand the context of the reference as it was used in the novel.

    Go ahead and call me a fascist now, it'll make you feel better.

  • ||

    Go ahead and call me a fascist now, it'll make you feel better.

    I would think idiot more appropriate.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    You know who else was an idiot?

  • Randian||

    I rebut and disclaim all individuals calling me an idiot.

  • ||

    You know who else was an idiot?

    Isn't this comment thread long enough?

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Jim Jones' followers?

  • John||

    No. You guys are just reaching for a lame analogy. We are not claiming to be at war with Pakistan. In 1984, they claimed to be at war but actually were not. The situations are opposite. And just because our enemies in Afghanistan hide in Pakistan doesn't mean we are at war with Pakistan proper.

    The whole thing is just stupid and cliche.

  • ||

    No moron...in the book you never know whether they area actually at war with anyone. the point was that the people were so numb to the reports that everyone simply accepted them as truth. The fact that no one in the media decries what we're doing in Pakistan or any other part of the world makes it an appropriate analogy in my opinion. Get off your high horse John Boy you're not as smart as you hope everyone thinks.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    The fact that no one in the media decries what we're doing in Pakistan or any other part of the world makes it an appropriate analogy in my opinion.

    Don't worry, they'll change their tune come January if Mittens takes over.

  • Pip||

    "Don't worry, they'll change their tune come January if Mittens takes over."

    100% correct.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The whole thing is just stupid and cliche.

    Yep.

    At least they could come up with a cliche that sorta fits.

    Like

    "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."

  • Joe R.||

    We are not claiming to be at war with Pakistan.

    Which makes the fact that we're lobbing a lot of bombs at them even worse.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Did we formally declare war on every place that we bombed during WWII?

    The Phillipines for example?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Or France?

  • Rasilio||

    Given that the Phillipines were still technically a US protectorate in the process of transitioning from a colony to an independent Republic with a scheduled date of 1946 being the final turn over date the US needed no permission to bomb the Phillipines at that time since we were still partially the owners of it.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    And France or New Guinea or Greece or Taiwan?

    It's lawful during wartime to attack your enemies even if they are occupying / hiding in another sovereign country.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    And France or New Guinea or Greece or Taiwan?

    It's lawful during wartime to attack your enemies even if they are occupying / hiding in another sovereign country.

  • wareagle||

    ..yet we constantly get reports about airstrikes in Pakistan and no one questions it.

    what do you mean no one questions it? Of course, they do. Folks here question the droning campaign itself. People on either Team question whether Pakistan is ally or an enemy, something no one seems to know.

    Just say you don't like the answers that are given, and you may have a point on that. Is it all bad guys who have crossed from Afghanistan or it same old, same old re: war on terror? But the case for "no one questions" is tough to make.

  • ||

    what do you mean no one questions it? Of course, they do. Folks here question the droning campaign itself.

    Yes because libertarian opinions such as those expressed here are so mainstream and well represented in the media right?

    Perhaps "no one" was a little hyperbolic. I should have simply said the majority of the mainstream media. That doesn't change the fact that it was a decent analogy.

  • wareagle||

    the MSM only criticizes military action when a Repub is in the Oval. You know that. Various military experts and analysts make the cable rounds talking about it, but I think that's mostly to check the block on whatever shows list of "things we ought to be talking about."

  • ||

    the MSM only criticizes military action when a Repub is in the Oval. You know that.

    Wareagle, I am well aware of this. My point of all this is that the 1984 reference was valid and Zaytsev and John are too convinced of their own brilliance to recognize it or give Ed credit for wit.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    These aren't the drones you're looking for.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    "These aren't the drones you're looking for."

    I like this reference better.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    I'm looking forward to January, when the "watchdog media" rediscovers Presidential overreach, civil liberties, and the shocking revelation that dozens of American soldiers are still dying in Afghanistan every month.

  • Pip||

    2,000 have died, but no Mike Luckovich "WHY" cartoon?

  • Pip||

    "That doesn't change the fact that it was a decent analogy."

    fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap...

  • Pip||

    Well we've been at war with drug users for nearly a century, John.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "Mr. Romney said he appreciates the counsel of Mr. Hubbard and others but reiterated his plans to replace Mr. Bernanke. He declined to say whether Mr. Hubbard, whom he called a wonderful economic adviser, might be a candidate for the job. Many people would be considered, he said."

    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/.....-bernanke/

  • tarran||

    If Romney announced that Jesús Huerta de Soto had agreed to be the next chair of the Fed, I'd pull the lever for him.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Coming out for Jesus as fed head would probably get a lot of votes from the Bible belt too.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    "Don't fuck with Jesus!"

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Proof of Romney's idiocy now that he is channeling Rick W. Perry on Bernanke (at least he didn't threaten him). Of course, Bernanke would still be on the Board of Governors with the same vote power he has now.

    Bernanke's term ends in 2020.

  • Brett L||

    Resignations happen.

  • R C Dean||

    Yeah, when the POTUS asks for your resignation, you give it.

    The alternative being the sort of auditorial anal exam that no one wants, weekly appearances before Congress to rehearse the dismal failure of your policies, etc.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Someone should ask Scalia to resign from the SCOTUS then.

  • gaijin||

    yeah, except that I don't remember a Federal reserve being mentioned in any separation of powers context.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    yeah, except that I don't remember a Federal reserve being mentioned in any separation of powers context.

    Not to mention that anybody in the other two branches calling for a Supreme Court justice's resignation, simply because they don't like their opinions or execution of the office, would be laughed out of the room.

    Shrike brings the DERP once again.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "Shrike brings the DERP once again."

    Actually, he's channeling Moonbase Gingrich:

    “'Are we forced for a lifetime to keep someone on the bench who is so radically anti-American that they are a threat to the fabric of the country?' Gingrich asked."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....story.html

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Actually, he's channeling Moonbase Gingrich:

    That's really gotta sting.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The Fed is a creation of Congress.

    SCOTUS, not at all.

  • Copernicus||

    "I brought you into this world and I'll take you out. I'll make another that looks just like you"

    /Bill Cosby

  • Pip||

    That son of yours? You didn't make that.

  • Mike M.||

    I'm not all that confident that Romney is going to ask Bernanke to resign

    Yes, Bernanke is a complete schmuck who should be back waiting tables at South of the Border, but sadly he's well connected and mostly respected inside the Beltway. And Romney is politically closer to Shrieking Idiot than he is to a libertarian.

  • Brett L||

    BBC asks: Is it normal to drink and get naked? Well, if you're 28 and playing billiards or near a pool with very attractive women, then yes. If you're 48 and you're driving around in your car (I'm looking at you, Country musicians), not so much.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    For some reason the first time I read it as "Is it normal to drink water and get naked?"

  • Brett L||

    "Fish fuck in it"

  • Pip||

    I recall being about 24 and playing strip Foosball, so I really can't lecture the prince.

  • Quetzalcoatl||

    Don't mess with the Famous, Part I

    While Breivik (who killed 77, mostly teens) gets a maximum of 21 years, the burglar LL Cool J broke faces a maximum of 38 years.

  • Fluffy||

    Yeah, considering the ice kicking the guy already got, you'd figure we could just call it square.

  • Fluffy||

    Ice kicking?

    That might be my best malapropism ever.

  • Quetzalcoatl||

    Nice one, 1997's Arnold Schwartzenegger.

  • ||

    Maybe he had some pot on him.

  • Zeb||

    It's in CA. I don't think the pot would be much of an enhancement there.

  • ||

    2,500 year old brain "had the consistency of tofu, and had none of the distinctive smell so often associated with dead corpses."

    Dead corpses?

    http://www.medicaldaily.com/ar.....BRwCvvz.99

  • Brett L||

    I believe in zombies.

  • SugarFree||

    Unfortunately, while the brain's appearance has been kept fresh, the cells and tissues have long died, though that is of course expected under the circumstances.

    Written by retards for the consumption of retards... what science considers a closed retard system.

  • Shirley Knott||

    You know -- not zombies.
    Unlike most corpses...

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "Apparently, nobody thought to tell the boys on the Romney beat that Gawker Media is part of a shell company incorporated in the Cayman Islands. Gawker’s money lives in the same neighborhood as Romney’s money."

    http://www.nationalreview.com/.....williamson

  • John||

    I love that. And it fits perfectly with Taranto's analysis of the Obama cult in Best of the Web yesterday.

    It's a leftist cliché that money corrupts politics. These leftists, however, believe that their politics somehow purifies money--that writing a check to Obama for America is an act of moral money-laundering.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/.....TopOpinion

    It is okay to be a complete crap weasel as long as you give to Obama and mean well. And I love this quote

    Creating a sense of intimacy with the President is especially important with Democratic donors, a frustrated Obama fund-raiser argues: "Unlike Republicans, they have no business interest being furthered by the donation-they just like to be involved. So it makes them more needy. It's like, 'If you're not going to deregulate my industry, or lower my taxes, can't I at least get a picture?' "

  • R C Dean||

    Unlike Republicans, they have no business interest being furthered by the donation

    Hilarious, in light of the billions of subsidies shoveled at donors and the rubber-stamp waivers from various laws handed out to donors.

  • Brett L||

    What's this "GE" company do? Obviously, they've got nothing invested in expensive new lightbulbs.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Hey, I have GE stock. They're my hedge against freedom.

  • Mike M.||

    I know, George Soros has no business interests whatsoever, right?

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's complete nonsense, anyway. I doubt there's a measurable distinction, on average, of the number of "corporate" donations received by the Republicans and the Democrats. Votes are being bought, either way.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Or at least it could be considered "protection money".

    Nice industry you have there...

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The democrats get the overwhelming amount of "corporate" money in politics because unions and advocacy groups are incorporated entities.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I was just talking the business side, but I agree that there are many interest groups sending in their bribes.

  • Bee Tagger||

    Suffer for a few days for the good of the country. They love their Obama.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The New Yorker unwittingly did the legwork on Gawker's finances for The National Review two years ago.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    The article is correct in that "hypocrisy" really isn't the main issue. This boils down to a bunch of cargo-cult nerds that should have been bullycided back in middle school.

    These are the same morons that tried to infilrate Fox News, only to get caught within a couple of days of beginning their breathless expose. How fucking stupid do you have to be, in an age where guys like James O'Keefe can troll liberals with breathtaking ease, to fall on your face like this?

  • tarran||

    Michael Mann determined destroy his reputation.

    The response of the National Review is telling with respect to the issues it did not address. It did not address, or even acknowledge, the fact that Dr. Mann’s research has been extensively reviewed by a number of independent parties, including the National Science Foundation, with never a suggestion of any fraud or research misconduct. It did not address, or even acknowledge, the fact that Dr. Mann’s conclusions have been replicated by no fewer than twelve independent studies. It did not deny the fact that it was aware that Dr. Mann has been repeatedly exonerated of any fraudulent conduct. It did not deny the fact that it knew its allegations of fraud were false. Rather, the National Review’s defense seems to be that it did not really mean what it said last month when it accused Dr. Mann of fraud. Beyond this, the response is little more than an invective filled personal attack on Dr. Mann. And further, this attack is coupled with the transparent threat that the National Review intends to undertake burdensome and abusive litigation tactics should Dr. Mann have the temerity to attempt to defend himself in court.
    *********

    We intend to file a lawsuit.

    He's planning on suing Steyn for libel. And we all know how Steyn reacts when sued for libel... :D

  • Brett L||

    Discovery should be fairly awesome.

  • John||

    The Rich Lowry response to that was great. This won't be defending a lawsuit. This will be a great journalistic endeavor which will be of great interest to our readers.

    I so hope he is dumb enough to file a law suit. Is this guy a climate scientist or Oscar Wilde?

  • tarran||

    He's Oscar Wilde.

    At the risk of repeating myself, Mann is yet another narcissist in the public eye who has been writing checks his abilities can't cash.

    The Climate Gate emails where he bullies other scientists into keeping their mouths shut about his abysmal statistical analyses are really cringe-worthy.

  • Fluffy||

    I saw that.

    Basically it's like saying, "Would you pay a couple million bucks to tear apart Dr. Mann's records?"

    I bet the Review can find a donor who will say, "Oh yeah!"

  • tarran||

    The pathetic thing is Mann is embroiled in two lawsuits where he is fighting desperately to keep his emails out of discovery.

    You'd think after the second time he'd figure out that sticking his penis in the meat-grinder wasn't the smartest thing to do.

  • wareagle||

    why would you think that? Mann has the bulk of the media and a good deal of public opinion, albeit uninformed, on his side. That sort of thing emboldens the stupid. Guys like Mann can always count on a pliant press and pundit class to continue chirping the "denier" meme at opponents.

  • John||

    What an awful client he must be for his lawyers. For the seventh time Mr. Mann, truth is a defense to liable.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Besides, isn't he a public figure?

  • LTC(ret) John||

    That sets the bar even higher, yes. He really should have just stuck to huffing in a high dudgeon and staying away from litigation.

  • Jerry on the road||

    He's making another Miami Vice movie?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Don't even joke about something like that.

  • Brett L||

    Anderson Cooper decides his career is more important than Obama's, sweats Wasserman-Schultz on the Dems attempts to paint Akins views as the views of all Reps.

    Man, between Tapper and Cooper, I'm wondering if they don't have some really bad internal polls for the Obama campaign.

  • wareagle||

    this has become a recurring theme at CNN. Wolf Blitzer also committed a random act of journalism with the same Mz Debbie. It's like even liberals are finally catching on that Obama is not like the rest of them.

  • Randian||

    committed a random act of journalism

    That's a winner right there.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    They're finally starting to realize that Obama worship makes them look like pathetic twits.

  • NoVAHockey||

    i'm convinced their internals are shit. The Rush belt is fracturing and they're running against a guy who is basically straight from central casting go to for "evil business man."

    I think Obama's never learned how to take a punch. and it's showing.

  • Bee Tagger||

    I think Obama's never learned how to take a punch. and it's showing.

    This.

    So many of his PR blunders can be linked directly to being thin-skinned.

    I can't imagine he'll respond well to any sense of the media turning on him, no matter how slight.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Nobody around to suppress opponent's nominating petitions, get court records unsealed or the like.

  • Randian||

    Wasserman-Schultz says that Mitt Romney wrote the platform because he embraced the 2000 platform.

    Say whaaat?

  • wareagle||

    DWS's picture can be found next to the phrase "gift that keeps on giving." You practically need popcorn and beverages to property watch any tv appearance she makes. In some ways, this woman is worse than Biden.

  • Brett L||

    Ever since they traded out Emmanuel for Daley, the last shred of professionalism is gone. The whole operation is one giant fuckup. There's something about winning both legislative chambers and the presidency that breaks the discipline of political parties, such that only being on the losing side of that proposition brings it back.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    She's way worse. Biden is a likable oaf.

    DWS is just a shrill ignorant witch.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    DWS is just a shrill ignorant witch.

    Rumor has it that she was the one who orchestrated that little kabuki show where Giffords cast the deciding vote to raise the debt ceiling. Watching Giffords try to maintain her dignity during such a farce shows what an exploitative piece of shit Debbie is.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Tapper's been fairly consistently decent, particular if you grade him against a likely left-wing bias.

  • Bee Tagger||

    The Bitcoin company BitInstant plans on offering the world’s first bitcoin-backed debit card, through MasterCard.

    Is my PIN open source?

  • ||

    6309

  • LTC(ret) John||

    + an encrypted number

  • The Late P Brooks||

    New data suggests Antarctica is not unusually warm after all.

    But this contradicts the consensus of anecdotal evidence. I hear the Antarcticanians are running around in shorts and t-shirts, and ordering air conditioners.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The NAACP of Colorado-Wyoming-Montana endorsed the medical marijuana legalization ballot initiative in Colorado, joining the evangelical Pat Robertson...

    AND Woody Harrelson. Everyone always forgets Woody Harrelson.

  • Quetzalcoatl||

    Don't mess with the Famous, Part II

    John Lennon's killer is denied parole for the seventh time, entering the 32nd year of his "20 to Life" sentence.

    Quoth the Parole Board, NEVERMORE:

    "Despite your positive efforts while incarcerated, your release at this time would greatly undermine respect for the law and tend to trivialize the tragic loss of life which you caused as a result of this heinous, unprovoked, violent, cold and calculated crime"

    Or, to rephrase:

    "Despite your positive efforts while incarcerated, your release at this time would greatly undermine respect for rockstars and tend to trivialize the tragic loss of famous life which you caused as a result of this heinous, unprovoked, violent, cold and calculated crime. So you are never going to see the sun again."
  • John||

    Fuck him. He shot Lennon to get famous. And he is plenty famous. Had he been an ordinary murder he wouldn't be famous. So I have no sympathy for him when he never gets out. You got what you want buddy. Have fun.

  • wareagle||

    I don't care if the guy murdered John Smith, random New Yorker. Fuck him and his positive efforts.

  • ||

    Do you want the White House beer recipe? Jay Carney will release it, if you really really want it

  • Quetzalcoatl||

    I was excited until I realized it was a honey ale.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Is it shit?

  • Quetzalcoatl||

    Though, speaking of which, did anyone see the terrible, terrible pandering on Masterchef (US) this week?

    "You will all be 'cooking' a dish that Barrack Obama once ordered at my restaurant!"
    Queue the "SQUEE!"s.

  • R C Dean||

    Master Chef, which ordinarily is pretty good as cooking shows go, has always been utterly in the tank for the Obamas. I think they had Michelle on once, and had a series in DC that was positively pukesome.

  • Quetzalcoatl||

    I like it when they're cooking. When they start preaching, I just glaze over until the cooking starts again.

  • BakedPenguin||

    ...I just glaze over...

    ISWYDT. Also, that's going to make your recipes too sweet.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I'm not sure what was worse, the status-mongering or them claiming that Wal-Mart steaks are delicious.

  • Jerry on the road||

    Damn, I wanted to fill out a FOIA form for the recipe just so it could get rejected.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Is it a beer liqueur?

  • mr simple||

    I love this response:

    Tim Mathews ‏@timmathews
    @PressSec Until you release the beer recipe, you've got no business criticizing Romney for not releasing his tax returns.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "Nineteen people were shot in attacks across the South and West sides between about 5:20 p.m. Thursday and 1:30 a.m. Friday - including 13 people during a single 30-minute period - according to the Chicago Police Department."

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/.....9779.story

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Clearly gun control works.

  • ||

    And yet GMA spend fifteen minutes this morning ruminating about Prince Harry's dick.

    Fucking morning "news". I wish people didn't turn this shit on in the gym.

  • RBS||

    I use it as a source of RAGE to power me through deadlift PRs. Speaking of news and the gym... The other day this two old ladies (mid 60's at least) got into a shouting match over PPACA. It ended with one lady storming out of the gym shouting that everybody should shut up and take because nobody knows what is actually going to happen.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Are these the "Chicago values" that Rahm said made Chik-fil-a unfit to be located there?

  • Brett L||

    Super awesome (but geeky and way inside baseball) materials science news. Some big-brain at MIT has possibly developed a predictive model of alloying. I'm excited about it. Probably no-one else will be.

  • tarran||

    I'm excited; I used to work in the steel industry, and it was amazing how much of what we knew appeared to be black magic dressed up with equations.

  • Brett L||

    That's why I love HyR. No matter how geeky my interests or perverted my fetishes, there's always someone to share in my excitement.

  • ||

    Unfortunately that doesn't extend to "no matter how bad I smell..." We draw the line at that

  • Brett L||

    I've got big sweat glands, what's a boy gonna do?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    That's why I refuse to buy a smelloscope.

  • wareagle||

    kudos, by the way, for the Latino flair in replacing the ampersand with a Y. Maybe Reason can use this to capture that elusive, and obviously monolithic, Hispanic vote.

  • Brett L||

    I'm taking my cues from RC Dean. He's outside the Axis of Rape.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I much prefer my method: H*squirrel*R.

    (even though I wasn't using the ampersand before it got axed)

  • robc||

    I never worked in the industry, but that was the impression I had too.

  • Rich||

    Dare I say it? Reardon Metal!

  • Scooby||

    That was my first thought.

  • robc||

    And that was pretty cool.

    If there stuff works out, I think that is nobel level discovery. But I doubt the nobel people agree.

    Would that be physics or chemistry?

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Physics, I would think. And they might just consider it - the science folks have not turned into the mush brains the "Peace" folks have, IIRC.

  • Brett L||

    They're indistinguishable at this level, but I'm going to respectfully disagree with the Colonel and say chemistry, because I'm a chemical engineer and this has immediate practical applications, so it can't be Nobel level physics.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Yeah, Brett - on second thought, I think you are right - applied science need not be considered by them, yes?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    It can't be Nobel level until they give some inspiring speeches about it.

  • Spoonman.||

    Holy crap, that is awesome!

  • BakedPenguin||

    On a related subject, can someone explain to me why aluminum isn't used as a plating metal?

  • Brett L||

    One of the major problems in plating aluminum is that the surface corrodes instantly making it difficult to get a good bond with the metal that you are applying.

    Here is one aluminum plating process. The first I found on google.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Okay, that makes sense. I actually thought that could be a feature (assuming the process could be worked out), since aluminum oxidation is non-destructive. Imagine car bodies with aluminum plated steel - non-rusting for the life of the car, absent accidents that expose the steel.

  • sarcasmic||

    Fix your freaking teeth already! It's not like you're broke or something!
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem.....video.html

  • sarcasmic||

  • VG Zaytsev||

    America needs self destructing roads and bridges like they have in China it's perpetual stimulus.

    / Tom Friedman

  • sarcasmic||

    Nothing stimulates the economy like broken windows!

  • Sterling's Gold||

    Broken dams.

  • ||

    Cosmo recommends silk tie handjobs, Jezebel says that's dumb

  • Brett L||

    Jezebel's problem with a lot of these is that the man might enjoy himself during sex.

  • wareagle||

    we ought to run a poll: man meets two women; one loves Cosmo, the other is dedicated to Jezebel. Which would the man be more likely to want to date, even if it's for a short time?

  • Brett L||

    Just how big are the Jezebelian's daddy issues and is her waist-size smaller than mine?

  • wareagle||

    a man's gotta have standards...

  • Brett L||

    Its the basic hot/crazy axis renormalized to fit Jezebel.

  • Zeb||

    You know what Cosmo should really recommend? Blowjobs.

  • Pip||

    "Tie his silky tie loosely around his penis, then roll it up and down for a silky handjob."

    Liked I'm gonna fuck up a $200 tie.

  • sarcasmic||

    Jessica Alba is still good enough to eat!
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs.....salon.html

  • ||

    Are you finished?

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Why do you ask, you want seconds?!

  • ||

    Needs a cheeseburger.

  • sarcasmic||

    Miley Cyrus on the other hand.. not so much.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs.....ments.html

  • John||

    I hope she invested her money well and her dead beat father didn't steal it all. I can't see it ending well for her at this point.

  • Fluffy||

    Apparently she still makes plenty of money, and her drug of choice is pot and not blow or heroin.

    She'll be fine.

    She'll gradually turn into a stoner gnome. Eventually she'll move to Santa Fe and get into bad arts and crafts.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Nice pattern recognition.

  • John||

    She is better off smoking pot than drinking or taking pills. It is easy to forget how big she was. A few years ago some friends of mine paid over a thousand dollars a ticket to take their daughter to see her at Madison Square Garden. She sold out like four nights in a row there. She was bigger than Led Zeppelin.

    And yeah, I could see her totally living in Santa Fe or Scottsdale or maybe north shore Maui doing the hippie arts and crafts thing. Good for her.

  • sarcasmic||

    She was bigger than Led Zeppelin.

    Heresy!

  • John||

    I didn't say she was better just bigger. Not having a preteen daughter in the 00s, you are kind of insulated from it. but when you are selling out MSG four nights in a row and people are paying upwards of $1500 a seat to scalpers, you are a big fucking deal no matter how badly you actually suck.

  • sarcasmic||

    Burn him!

    Buuuuuuuuuuurrnnn!

  • Randian||

    I'm calling mother of two and future country singer.

    You can take the girl out of Nashville...

  • John||

    that is a good guess too. You can always run back to country.

  • Randian||

    You can always run back to country.

    Exactly what I was thinking.

  • Pip||

    "You can always run back to country"

    Fantastic country song title. The video, like the song, would practically write itself.

  • wareagle||

    she will be the anti-Taylor Swift.

  • Brett L||

    If only she'd be the anti-Billy Ray.

  • wareagle||

    what, no Achy Breaky love?

  • LTC(ret) John||

    +1 quarter

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Miley Cyrus Theater in Branson right next to Yakov's venue. You heard it here first.

  • The Craig||

    Not into the butch look?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    WTF

  • SugarFree||

    What is the theoretical limit to how many STDs a person can have at once? Can you have all of them? For example, does syphilis kill your crop of public lice?

  • sarcasmic||

    Can you have all of them?

    I think JFK did.

  • Tim||

    http://www.urbandictionary.com.....term=Three Stooges Syndrome

    Three Stooges Syndrome
    When a person has so many illnesses and diseases trying to kill them, that they cancel each other out - much like when all three of the Three Stooges are attempting to get through a doorway at the same time and get stuck as a result. Coined on 'The Simpsons' in reference to Mr Burns' health. Mr. Burns interpreted this condition as indestructibility.
    'The only reason that guy can possibly still be alive is if he has Three Stooges Syndrome.'

  • ||

    Dude, she's got a nice little skank body. She would be a ton of fun, and you all know it. Plus, I already have all the incurable STDs, so it's no big deal anyway.

  • RBS||

    I will withhold judgement until I find out what her forearm paragraph tattoo says.

  • sarcasmic||

  • LTC(ret) John||

    YOW! Thanks for that.

  • Jack the Reaper||

    I'll be in my bunk.

  • ant1sthenes||

    On the one hand, I admire the Norwegians for sticking with their principles. On the other hand, I don't know what could possibly make it clearer that their principles are retarded.

  • SugarFree||

    I don't know what could possibly make it clearer that their principles are retarded.

    He gets out in 21 years and murders 77 more teenagers.

  • Quetzalcoatl||

    Only 69 were teens. 8 were government employees that he bombed.

  • Fluffy||

    In 21 years he'll be in his middle / late 50's and there will be perpetual surveillance of every human being on the planet.

    I doubt he'll actually be that dangerous to anyone.

  • Quetzalcoatl||

    Plus: the singularity will have happened by then and he'll be the only one Left Behind.

    So that'll be the ultimate punishment.
    Time at last enough to read... but what's this? Every book is in binary! NOOOOOOOOOO!

  • SugarFree||

    I doubt he'll actually be that dangerous to anyone.

    You have a point. Tulpa's 24-hour surveillance drone dream will be a reality and humans will finally have enough rules to be truly free.

  • Zeb||

    If he's still spouting his bullshit in 21 years, I doubt they will let him out. From what I gather, they do have the option of not releasing him if he is still considered a danger.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    they had better do it now, and decrease the surplus population!

  • sarcasmic||

    While dude is only getting a 21yr sentence, their law does allow indefinite detainment if he is deemed to dangerous to be set free. De facto life in prison.

  • The Craig||

    Still seems like a waste of time and money to revisit how dangerous he is every 21 years.

  • Chloe||

    I believe it is every five years that he can appeal to be release.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    I know cruel and unusual punishments are officially out of the question in most(all?) of the western world, but as with the implied rape of prison time in the U.S., why couldn't a "bureaucratic snafu" accidentally land Brevik in the same room as ax-wielding family members of the victims he murdered? It's government, it's incompetent, and why should anyone question the snafu because "it could have happened to anybody." Plus, if enough people hack away, Brevik will have disappeared only to be replaced by hamburger meat. Where did he go?

  • Bardas Phocas||

    I think I saw a korean movie with that plot.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Also known as the "Jeffrey Dahmer Sentence". WI had no official death penalty...."Hey, how did he end up alone, on work detail with an already life-with-no-parole murderer that just happened to have a mop with a detachable handle?! [Kendo killin' commence!] Gosh, the security guard left to find out why the camera watching the area was out - he was only gone for 5 minutes. Gee, what an unlucky happenstance."

  • Marshall Gill||

    Dahmer committed suicide. He was held in solitary and was probably not in any danger there. He asked to be placed in the general population because he knew what would happen.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    And the WI DoC was most accomodating, yes?

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "Immigration agents file suit against Napolitano over 'amnesty' program"

    http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....z24T9zQdoE

  • ||

    In the wake of Chad Kroeger's engagement, here is that gallery of frosted tips you've been waiting for. God, the late 90's and early 00's were fraught with douchiness. Even Cristiano Ronaldo, but him with a healthy side of "fuck yes, I'd hit it."

  • Brett L||

    Justin Timberlake probably tracked down his manager from that era and had him shot after seeing the company he shared.

  • SugarFree||

    Timberlake needs to stop making shitty music and join the SNL cast for good.

  • John||

    I think Nick Lashey or whatever his name is is the guy who should join SNL. He made a perfect straight man for Jessica Simpson. Did you ever watch that show? They were the George and Gracie of the 21st Century.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    The best moments were when he got that look on his face that said, "Yeah, I'm hitting this, but is it really worth it?"

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, I can't think of a single song of his, but he is pretty great on SNL.

  • Randian||

    Timberlake epitomized it at the time. He didn't 'share' the company, he was its pack leader.

  • John||

    I get Renaldo. He is in mad shape. I would love to have the time and the money to spend my life working out five hours a day with a private trainer to look like that.

    But here is my question, what the hell is up with women, especially young ones, and douchy effeminate men? Are young women just that terrified of masculinity?

  • ||

    Yeah, I can't really explain it either. Ronaldo exudes an extremely douchey vibe but the body makes up for a lot. The rest of them were sad unsexy teenage mistakes.

  • Chloe||

    Got to agree, I would totally do him regardless of the vibe he gives off.

  • ||

    Women don't realize that they really like lumberjacks until at least 25, usually. Until that point, they allow themselves to be deceived by their fashion magazines or whatever into liking pretty boys.

    ...Actually, that sounds more or less right.

  • sarcasmic||

    "I'm a lumberjack and I'm OK..."

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xToPCaNxaow

  • Randian||

    Yeah, wow, who knew that hirsute Clevelanders had such insight?

    I'm going to stroll through the East Side next time and see if there are any other little Croat Yodas out there.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    "Croat Yodas"

    Good band name.

  • ||

    cos it's a safe way for young girls to think about sex. These guys, boy bands - they're just a gateway drug

  • SugarFree||

    Lisa Simpsons' favorite teen magazine was Non-Threatening Boys.

  • ||

    The opposite end of the spectrum (Threatening Boys) explains how Warty manages to get laid, despite the persistent, musky odor he emits.

  • SugarFree||

    Warty has also mastered the subtle art of the sexy loom.

  • ||

    SOON

    shut up, spam filter.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    And that guy could have had his pick of all the fat drunken skanks found state-side.

  • ||

    Who?

  • ||

    Thanks Dagny. After that I need a shower to wash the gay off.

  • mr simple||

    New data suggests Antarctica is not unusually warm after all.

    it has often been hotter than it is now at Ross Island during the past 10,000 years

    Duh, how else would the shoggoths awaken?

  • LTC(ret) John||

    +1 Old One

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Ad on the pension scandal at Delphi:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXsUXhWphA8

  • robc||

    Bitcoin is still a thing?

  • ||

    Bitcoin is a growing thing.

  • SugarFree||

    Important Article That All Libertarians Need To Read:

    5 Signs the Townspeople Are About to Turn on You

  • Brett L||

    Its a cookbook!

  • Tim||

    Not to be confused with: "5 signs the townspeople are about to turn you on."

  • SugarFree||

    A caress with a pitchfork is better than none.

  • Brett L||

    "Does anyone else hear a funky guitar riff?"

  • ||

    Science has at last discovered the secret of my strength. Dammit.

  • SugarFree||

    Awesome. I wonder if any sort of porn works better than the others.

  • ||

    Tranny dominatrix porn, obviously.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    A Texas rebellion over private property rights and a major new oil pipeline was dealt a setback by a judge, who ruled that the Canadian firm TransCanada had the right to use the power of eminent domain to run its Keystone XL pipeline across a landowner's property.

    The ruling in Paris, Texas, from Lamar County Court-at-Law Judge Bill Harris - sent in a few terse words from his iPhone - was a blow to the unlikely coalition of environmentalists, ranchers and “tea party” activists who have mounted a grass-roots challenge against the pipeline in a state traditionally friendly to oil and gas projects.

    http://newsok.com/landowner-in.....le/3703650

  • R C Dean||

    Yeah, they were never going to win. The Texas Supreme Court is famously in the bag for Big Oil.

  • John||

    I wonder how many of these "ranchers" are actually ranchers and not big city greens playing country on the weekends. Where I come from a pipeline going across your land is a great deal. They pay you a fortune and basically dig and fill a big whole across your land and put it back the way it was when they are finished. It doesn't effect jack. It makes no sense for the land owners to be pissed about this.

  • Randian||

    I don't give a damn if they're Ted fucking Turner. It's their land.

  • John||

    It is. But if they are in fact just greens who bought ranches, that makes it a bit different.

    And the idea of rich greens buying land and taking it out of production for nothing more than religious purposes is an interesting issue. One the one hand, it is there land. On the other, you have the problem of Ted Turner. Turner has purchased millions of acres of land all over the west, taken it out of production and used that as an excuse to stop paying property taxes. Yeah it is his land. But he has totally fucked a bunch of communities by essentially destroying the local economy and tax base by buying half or more of the county and turning it into a untaxed nature preserve.

    People like Ted Turner and other rich green organizations like the Nature conservancy are becoming like the old monastery system. Huge amounts of land and wealth taken off of the market and not subject to taxes. They are actually worse because at least the monasteries produced something.

  • Randian||

    I guess those communities can move to Communist China or some other hellhole where private property doesn't matter if the community wills it so.

  • John||

    You are missing the point. People like the nature conservancy use corporation law to take land out of production forever. No more rule against perpetuities. It is one thing if some nut wants to make his otherwise productive land into a park. But eventually that guy will die and someone will buy or inherit the land and put it to productive use. So that is really not an issue.

    This is different. As rich greens buy more and more land, the rest of the country gets poorer and poorer. It really is no different than the aristocracy in medieval Europe owning all of the forests as hunting preserves. That is a real economic and political problem. And just yelling "you don't like it move to China, communist" isn't really and answer.

  • Randian||

    As soon as its enviros vs. Oil, John loses respect for private property.

    Color me shocked. And you wonder where the Red Tony moniker comes from.

    John, this a self-correcting problem. Eventually, the green boards are going to get dollar signs in their eyes just like everybody else. The first and second Boards of Directors and owners are die-hard crunchy types, but their kids are the inheritors of the stock or ownership interests, and some Alex Keaton type is going to come along either amongst the kids or grandkids and figure out a way to divest and make a mint.

  • John||

    But that can't happen Randian. The boards have charters. And the organization has a life of its own. The idiot sons don't inherit it. New and different crazy greens take over.

  • Randian||

    Charters are alterable by vote of the shareholders. Corporations can be dissolved. Money solves these alleged "problems"

  • Fluffy||

    This is different. As rich greens buy more and more land, the rest of the country gets poorer and poorer.

    John suddenly subscribes to zero-sum theory when he needs to in order to justify stealing the property of people he doesn't like.

  • John||

    Land is a zero sum game fluffy. You don't make more of it. And if a given set of land could be used to produce say oil or timber wealth and that land is instead set aside by some rich green, the economy as a whole has less oil or timber and is thus poorer.

    The market is supposed to correct for that. Eventually someone will buy it and use it. That is why we have the rule against perpetuities. To keep people from keeping land in the same hands. We want land on the market so the person who puts it to the best use eventually buys it.

    The idea of greens buying land and taking it off the market now and forever destroys the entire common law system of land ownership and the market and economy it created.

  • Randian||

    he market is supposed to correct for that. Eventually someone will buy it and use it. That is why we have the rule against perpetuities.

    Wait, so RAP is an emergent part of the market?

    Here I thought it was from common law.

  • John||

    No Randian. It is part of the common law which created the market. The reason why the common law create the rule is to get the land out of the hands of aristocrats and put it on the market so people would buy it and put it to its best use.

    Now we have Greens who are subverting the entire system and creating what amounts to royal hunting preserves.

  • Randian||

    Do you believe in immortal corporations, private property, and freedom of contract, or not?

  • John||

    Sure Randian. But I don't believe in restraint against alienation. These foundations are not ordinary corporations. They are corporations who can only by their charters by land and set it aside. That is different than ordinary corporation buying land.

  • Randian||

    But I don't believe in restraint against alienation.

    So in other words, no, you don't believe in freedom of contract.

    You line here would ban, through the power of the State, freely-negotiated deeds that contain covenants, easements, reciprocal servitudes, etc.

  • Fluffy||

    The reason why the common law create the rule is to get the land out of the hands of aristocrats and put it on the market so people would buy it and put it to its best use.

    The problem(s) with aristocratic estates were:

    1. They were originally stolen.

    2. They were protected from attachment for debt.

    Maybe people thought the problem was perpetuities, but they were wrong.

  • John||

    2. They were protected from attachment for debt.

    And why were they protected from? Because they couldn't be sold you half wit. Once they could be sold, then they could then be borrowed against and thus were no longer protected from attachment of debt.

    The problem was the RAP.

  • Randian||

    And why were they protected from? Because they couldn't be sold you half wit. Once they could be sold, then they could then be borrowed against and thus were no longer protected from attachment of debt.

    What? You completely missed the point.

  • Fluffy||

    And why were they protected from? Because they couldn't be sold you half wit.

    They were also protected in a general liquidation.

    So the problem isn't that there was an immortal owner; the problem was that the current owner could protect his largest asset against attachment because a previous owner had been ennobled.

  • John||

    So the problem isn't that there was an immortal owner; the problem was that the current owner could protect his largest asset against attachment because a previous owner had been ennobled.

    For the second time fluffy, why was it protected against attachment? Because it couldn't be sold or transferred. He couldn't sell it, he couldn't borrow against it, and he couldn't give it away.

    The problem is the restraint against alienation. That is why they created the rule, to stop that from happening.

  • Fluffy||

    Land is a zero sum game fluffy. You don't make more of it. And if a given set of land could be used to produce say oil or timber wealth and that land is instead set aside by some rich green, the economy as a whole has less oil or timber and is thus poorer.

    The market is supposed to correct for that.

    No, dude.

    This is no different than people devoting a portion of their income to luxuries, or a portion of their time to leisure. You don't get to argue that it makes "the country poorer" because it's garden-variety preference expression of the sort that happens in every single market transaction of any kind.

    Taking land off the market raises the value of the remaining land left on the market, prompting its more efficient use. Just like any other production input.

    We want land on the market so the person who puts it to the best use eventually buys it.

    If the person who bought it just wants to look at the pretty flowers, that is the best use.

  • John||

    f the person who bought it just wants to look at the pretty flowers, that is the best use.

    Sure it is. But when that is set aside by an immortal foundation and the use never changes no matter what, then it really isn't. It is a restraint against alienation. The problem is not setting it aside. The problem is setting it aside for all time. You are missing the point.

  • Fluffy||

    It is a restraint against alienation.

    No, it's not.

    If the corporate owner goes bankrupt, the property will be auctioned.

    Institutional continuity of purpose is not the same as restraint against alienation, dude.

  • John||

    The end result is the same fluffy. So it functionally is.

  • Fluffy||

    The end result is the same fluffy. So it functionally is.

    I think we see different problems in the history of European aristocracy.

    You apparently think the problem is that land was lying fallow.

    To me, the problem was that you had people enjoying the benefits of land ownership and wealth without assuming the full liabilities of being the real owners of the land.

    It's as if I was given a magic MGM grand $1000 chip that if I bet it and won, I kept the winnings, but if I bet it and lost, I kept the chip.

    It was an unjust method of allocating ownership; it gave the large landowners rights at law that others did not possess; and it meant that in any economic transaction I entered with a landowner, all of my property was at risk, but most of his was not.

    "Land lying fallow in game preserves" wasn't even on the radar as a problem. These other issues were the problem.

  • Pip||

    "You apparently think the problem is that land was lying fallow"

    Read about Poland during the days of feudalism. If a peasant caught a rabbit to feed his starving family, the landowner could have him executed. Plenty of bunnies were hopping around, but only for the pleasure of the rich.

    Why do you love the one percenters, Fluffy?

  • sarcasmic||

    John suddenly subscribes to zero-sum theory when he needs to in order to justify stealing the property of people he doesn't like.

    Principles? Red Tony don't need no stinking principles!

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Speaking of medieval forest preserves.

    http://blogs.laweekly.com/info....._death.php

  • Pip||

    "You are missing the point."

    I've noticed that a lot. Always seems to argue tangentially.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    John's authoritarian streak is really showing. If it were land seized for a solar farm he would be having conniption fits. Conservatives reflexively support oil pipeline seizures.

  • robc||

    But if they are in fact just greens who bought ranches, that makes it a bit different.

    Not a bit. Landowners are landowners.

    I have argued for years that environmental groups should have been using their money to buy land and revert it to nature instead of lobbying with it.

  • sarcasmic||

    Not a bit. Landowners are landowners.

    Not true. The politics of the person determines their rights.

    I have argued for years that environmental groups should have been using their money to buy land and revert it to nature instead of lobbying with it.

    Why buy land and pay taxes on it when you can use government force to achieve your goal?

  • robc||

    Why buy land and pay taxes on it when you can use government force to achieve your goal?

    1. Because eventually the other guys are in charge.

    2. To earn my respect. I may not agree with them, but if they did it the way I suggest, I would respect them.

  • sarcasmic||

    1. Because eventually the other guys are in charge.

    In cases such as this, the other guys rarely change things.

    2. To earn my respect. I may not agree with them, but if they did it the way I suggest, I would respect them.

    What do they care about your respect? They've got "Fuck you, that's why" on their side.

  • robc||

    Turner has purchased millions of acres of land all over the west, taken it out of production and used that as an excuse to stop paying property taxes.

    No reason the locals/state should accept that.

    With a Single Land Tax that wouldnt work anyway.

  • Fluffy||

    "Stop projects I don't like by refusing to sell my land to the developer" is frickin' sainthood compared to "Use the government to stop projects I don't like by taking other peoples' property rights away".

  • robc||

    Turner has purchased millions of acres of land all over the west, taken it out of production and used that as an excuse to stop paying property taxes.

    No reason the locals/state should accept that.

    With a Single Land Tax that wouldnt work anyway.

  • John||

    If it were an ideal world, you would be right. But it is not an ideal world. And Turner has used the feds to declare his ranches buffalo preserves and basically off limits to local land taxes.

  • robc||

    used the feds

    Problem identified.

    Once again, the problem isnt with his property rights.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Turner has purchased millions of acres of land all over the west, taken it out of production and used that as an excuse to stop paying property taxes.

    Somehow I have to pay property taxes on my rental property whether I'm earning income from it or not.

    Why is anyone exempted from that?

    And is exempting some people from taxes that others have to pay a libertarian position?

  • R C Dean||

    On the other, you have the problem of Ted Turner. Turner has purchased millions of acres of land all over the west, taken it out of production and used that as an excuse to stop paying property taxes.

    As a regular visitor to Ted Turner's ranch in New Mexico, I can assure you it has not been taken out of production.

    For one thing, the lucky bastard found natural gas on it, which he is definitely not leaving underground.

    For another, he ranches bison there. And, of course, he runs a fine, fine fly fishing and hunting operation there.

    Frankly, I don't know what more could really be done with it. Its pretty mountainous, couldn't possibly be farmed, and even the bits that you could run cows on are pretty small, and look to me like are full of bison already.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    John has just persuaded me to send off another big contribution to the Nature Conservancy. True story.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Wait, how does he avoid paying taxes? The value of the property is what someone pay to buy it off of him. It should have the same value (minus the cost of development, I suppose) whether currently or potentially productive.

    In general, purchasing and wilding land is the libertarian-approved method of environmentalism, but you still have to pay fairly to do so like anyone else.

  • Zeb||

    If I were rich, I'd probably do the same thing. I like land that is in something of a "state of nature" (yes, I know that doesn't mean much, but it's what I like). It's something I value and would be worth it to me. The tax policies and perpetual trusts are a separate issue. But as long as it is private people buying the land with their own money, I like it.

    And "out of production" land does still produce valuable things, especially if it is forest or mountains. Clean water and air are valuable resources as well.

  • wareagle||

    john,
    I think using eminent domain pretty much eliminates the landowners' windfall, doesn't it?

  • John||

    Maybe. They still have to pay them even under eminent domain. And the compensation has to be reasonable.

  • wareagle||

    and who defines reasonable? The whole Kelo case went beyond the value of eminent domain...after all the fussing, the project was never built.

  • Fluffy||

    Maybe I just don't want my property used for a particular purpose.

  • robc||

    Then they shouldnt need eminent domain. Without ED they will eventually make an offer that cant be refused.

  • John||

    Not really. Do the game theory on it. Any single land owner can hold out and stop the whole project. That means everyone has an incentive to do so and the project quickly runs out of money paying each recalcitrant landowner and never gets built.

  • Fluffy||

    So what?

  • John||

    Then no pipeline ever gets built anywhere, that is what. That is kind of a problem isn't it?

  • Randian||

    Then no pipeline ever gets built anywhere, that is what. That is kind of a problem isn't it?

    Unbelievable.

    It is as if you jettisoned literally every single thing about economics and public policy you have ever learned.

  • ||

    Randian

    Unbelievable.

    It is as if you jettisoned literally every single thing about economics and public policy you have ever learned.

    Please explain/verbalize how John is wrong on this.

  • Fluffy||

    Pipelines get built where the market will support it.

    I don't have any sympathy for leftists when they complain that their grand projects can't get accomplished unless they compel participation.

    Why would I care about Keystone?

  • John||

    Fluffy,

    This has nothing to do with the market. This has to do with people gaming the system and making an otherwise profitable endeavor impossible to build.

    The market totally supports keystone. The problem is that the leverage given to each individual landowner makes it in their interest to demand every single dollar right up until the point the pipeline can't be built. And when everyone does that, the pipeline never gets built because no one has an incentive to back down on their price.

    The market and life is actually more complex than spouting platitudes.

  • Randian||

    The market totally supports keystone.

    Obviously the local land market does not.

    The problem is that the leverage given to each individual landowner makes it in their interest to demand every single dollar right up until the point the pipeline can't be built

    No it does not. When a landowner does this, he is in fact playing a game of chicken: will the company blink first, or it will route around him / move the project somewhere else?

    If I have a million dollar offer in front of me, and I push it, and the company walks away, I just lost a million dollars.

    The market and life is actually more complex than spouting platitudes.

    No wonder you're an Obama supporter.

  • John||

    It depends on how easy it is to reroute the pipeline and how you can effectively you leverage the landowners against each other.

    Would it get built anyway? Perhaps. In the end if it does, we all pay higher gas prices so a bunch of land owners in Texas can extort pipeline companies. Forgive me for not finding their cause particularly compelling.

  • Randian||

    In the end if it does, we all pay higher gas prices so a bunch of land owners in Texas can extort be paid what their land is worth by pipeline companies.

    FIFY.

    Hm, what else would John say this about?

    In the end if it does, we all pay higher gas fare prices so a bunch of land owners in Texas California can extort pipeline companies railroad companies.
    n the end if it does, we all pay higher gas electricity prices so a bunch of land owners in Texas Arizona can extort pipeline companies Solyndra.
  • Fluffy||

    This has to do with people gaming the system and making an otherwise profitable endeavor impossible to build.

    The problem here is that you've bought into the leftist argument that if I perceive a change in circumstances that increases the value of my holdings and I realize the windfall, I've somehow done something wrong.

    My belly button lint has no value. But if an alien space vampire plague hits and scientists discover that the only cure is my belly button lint, guess what? The price of my belly button lint just went up to a billion fucking dollars.

    "Wah, you're gaming the system!"

    Tough shit. Pay up or don't build your pipeline here.

  • robc||

    The price of my belly button lint just went up to a billion fucking dollars.

    Sucker, Im pricing mine at $800 million. And they can pay with the regular kind of dollars that just lie there.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    It might be a problem, but it's not the landowner's problem.

  • ||

    Do the game theory on it.

    NASH EQUILIBRIUM

  • robc||

    Or route around them.

    It takes one guy who just wants a check.

  • John||

    But every guy has the incentive to hold out for the maximum amount and screw everyone else. So it never gets built.

  • Randian||

    Congratulations, joe from lowell, you just advocated for eminent domain to solve the holdout problem.

    Will you be razing poor families' homes now or later?

  • robc||

    But every guy has the incentive to hold out for the maximum amount and screw everyone else. So it never gets built.

    That isnt true. Only one guy (per stretch of land) is needed, so first to break gets all the benefit. So, there is incentive to being the guy who makes the deal.

    Its a bit more complex than that of course, but it still works that way. Its not like with the Kelo scenario where it is all of nothing, the whole neighborhood needs to be bought out. Everyone in the area doesnt get the pipeline, only a few tracts of land are needed.

    Its basically a reverse auction. The buyer keeps raising the price until ONE seller mashes their button to lock in the sale.

  • R C Dean||

    Doesn't work that way, robc. The incentive is to be the last holdout, not the first to grab the deal, because the pipeline doesn't need one particular piece of land, it needs a whole bunch of pieces of land that are all next to each other.

    Personally, I tend to see rights of way as perhaps the only legitimate use of eminent domain for private purposes.

  • Randian||

    Again, this is a self-correcting problem.

    A smart TransCanada guy gets together three different possible routes that the pipeline can go over.

    After some decision-making processes, they decide to go with Route A.

    You get all of the owners of Route A in a room and say "here's the package deal. Take it or leave it. If you leave it, the owners at Route B and C have already indicated their willingness to play ball".

  • Tulpa Doom||

    You get all of the owners of Route A in a room and say "here's the package deal. Take it or leave it. If you leave it, the owners at Route B and C have already indicated their willingness to play ball".

    And then a wizard magically appears and sprinkles faerie dust on the land and the pipeline magically sprouts out of the ground and everyone lives happily ever after.

    No less a fantasy than your "solution".

  • robc||

    No, it needs one piece of land per perpendicular stretch.

    Lets say it runs north-south. They need one chunk of land per east-west stripe. Yeah, they need to touch on the north/south side, hence my "its a bit more complex than that" comment.

    Lets say they got compliant landowners lined up in stripe 1 and stripe 3, they just then need ONE member of the holdouts in stripe 2 to agree to sell.

    Personally, I tend to see rights of way as perhaps the only legitimate use of eminent domain for private purposes.

    IIRC, the law requires right-of-ways for internal properties that dont have direct road access. But an underground pipeline is something completely different.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    But if you're the last holdout, they'll just route around you.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I was just thinking that perhaps one partial solution to eminent domain abuse would be to define when it can be used. Like maybe with highways or something along those lines.

    Also, ED or no ED, the actual market price isn't what's "fair", it's what the property is worth on the market. Even if there's only one buyer.

  • robc||

    Also, ED or no ED, the actual market price isn't what's "fair", it's what the property is worth on the market. Even if there's only one buyer.

    This is why ED on its face is a flawed concept. Kelo wasnt payed a FMV, because the value of the property to her was much higher. The only way to determine the FMV was for her to agree to sell the property.

  • Zeb||

    The only way to determine the FMV was for her to agree to sell the property.

    This is the objection I always have to ED payments. The fair value is one on which the buyer and seller can agree and that is all that it is. If I am unwilling to sell my property for any price, then it is priceless.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Too bad, John. Free markets gotta be free.

    I took Property in law school too - holding out for a higher price isn't a RAP violation.

    I am disappoint with Lamar County judge. Not surpised, mind you.

  • mr simple||

    But every guy has the incentive to hold out for the maximum amount and screw everyone else. So it never gets built.

    Not necessarily. If the different land owners are competing with each other to get the money, they have an incentive to be the first to accept the offer, otherwise they get nothing.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Or route around them.

    But some guy is going to buy a one foot wide strip of land encircling the project and refuse to sell and will fuck over the project just to be a dick and then no one will get oil and the economy will crash then civilization will end and zombies will inherit the earth!

  • robc||

    Except their is also the one dick farmer who refuses to sell his 1 ft wide strip of land to the envirodick.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    They'll just promise him the antizombie vaccine.

  • John||

    What RC said above. Pipelines and highways are probably the only proper use of ED.

    You guys drive me nuts sometimes. You seem to have no idea how the market actually works in real life. Contrary to what you may think the market is not perfect. There is such a thing as market failure. It happens a lot less than liberals think it does. But just because liberals have raped the term of all meaning doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. This is one of those cases. RC explained it better than I can. And it is not a self correcting problem.

  • Fluffy||

    You guys drive me nuts sometimes. You seem to have no idea how the market actually works in real life. Contrary to what you may think the market is not perfect. There is such a thing as market failure. It happens a lot less than liberals think it does. But just because liberals have raped the term of all meaning doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. This is one of those cases. RC explained it better than I can. And it is not a self correcting problem.

    John, it's not a market failure if you form a pipeline company and fail to acquire parcels on a particular route.

    Maybe you fail and go bankrupt. Sucks to be you.

    Maybe NOBODY will ever succeed in building a pipeline on that particular route or in that general area. Oh well.

    Maybe pipelines will only be built in areas where the land ownership pattern is fairly simple and there aren't a lot of individual small owners to deal with. Oh well.

    You're acting like you have a right to undertake a successful pipeline project even when you start the project not already owning a route. So much of a right, in fact, that you can seize the property of defiant landowners in your way. WTF, dude? Your right to property is superior to the right of the current owners because you think you have a good idea of something neat to do with it. WTF, dude? It's a "market failure" because people don't want to sell you their property? LOL, wut?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    It's a "market failure" because people don't want to sell you their property?

    Wikipedia definition of market failure:

    That is, there exists another conceivable outcome where a market participant may be made better-off without making someone else worse-off.

    John apparently doesn't think someone losing their land qualifies as "making someone else else worse-off".

    Though he could always go the dunphy route and act like the fact that I used Wikipedia to define a term renders the argument retarded.

  • ||

    Fluffy, while I completely agree in principle, I'm having a hard time with the practicality. Pipelines are one thing. What about roadz and power lines? These things need to run in straight lines for efficiency. To run a power line from one end of the country to the other would require the company negotiate with thousands if not millions of landowners. Who could afford that? Can you imagine if interstate highways had to jink around every fucking asshole holdout?

    I need to think more on this.

  • Fluffy||

    Francisco, the problem is that you're picturing an existing development landscape that came into being using eminent domain and seizure of rights of way, and trying to figure out how to exactly duplicate it without those tools.

    The answer is that without those tools we wouldn't exactly duplicate it and would have an entirely different development pattern.

    Power lines are a good example. Without actually implementing it we can't be sure, but I imagine we'd have much more distributed power generation.

  • Zeb||

    What I want to know is why can't they use existing rights of way for highways and railroads. Seems like there must be a corridor they could use there.

  • #||

    John, the game theory issue can mostly be mitigated via the use of options contracts.

    The pipeline company plans out a number of different routs and buys the right to each rancher's land as an option contract that only gets striked if the company is able to obtain similar contracts for the entire length of the project.

    This is how many multiple parcel land development deals are done.

  • Randian||

    # has it exactly right. The contracts are conceptualized as a package deal. If one fails, they all fail.

  • ||

    When dealing with thousands and thousands of landowners, won't they ALWAYS fail? Won't there always be enough assholes to doom a project?

    Unless, of course, you want to lay 10,000 miles of pipe to transverse 1000 miles straight line distance. (yes, I said lay pipe)

  • Bobarian||

    There was a proposed Hyundai plant in KY. The last family wanted millions for land that wasn't worth crap.

    This then turned into death threats, lynch mobs, and bad laws.

    A pipeline and a road are probably good use of imminent domain. Roads serve the land they're going through, and in most cases, a pipeline doesn't usually result in a permanent loss of use/access.

  • R C Dean||

    Why would somebody who doesn't want the pipeline on their land at all and thus won't sell the easement outright, sell an option to put the pipeline on their land?

    I don't see how this solves the holdout problem, at least for a pipeline of any length.

    Without ED, it only takes one holdout to block any given route. If you can't string together more than, say, a dozen contracts (options or no) without hitting a holdout, then there won't be any pipeline if you need to cross hundreds of parcels.

    Let's not forget; the company is paying for those options. If a route fails because of one holdout, it loses all the money its paid on all the options on that route.

    I can see how this could work for a land development deal, maybe, or a short pipeline, but I just am not seeing it for pipelines that go hundreds of miles.

  • Fluffy||

    I can see how this could work for a land development deal, maybe, or a short pipeline, but I just am not seeing it for pipelines that go hundreds of miles.

    That's because you're picturing ripping out one piece of our development system while leaving all the others.

    Without eminent domain, you know what else would be a lot harder to build for long distances?

    As Francisco notes above: Roads. Sewer lines. Power lines.

    I don't think you'd have a million small property holders to negotiate with if we didn't have the development pattern we've got. If rural land users had to pay the actual costs of developing their land, instead of getting subsidies and steamrolling landowners who get in their way when they "need" something, rural land prices would fall and you'd probably see dramatic aggregation of parcels into larger units.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    I'm not sure if that's the case, Fluffy, but it's irrelevant anyway. Starting from square one is not an option, we have to deal with things the way they are.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Hows this for a solution: the govt has to pay double the fair value of the property to seize the land, and if it's then given to a private party they have to reimburse the govt for that cost.

    If we absolutely NEED the road, pipeline, or whatever, it will be worth it to pay double, but it would cut down on casual ED.

  • ||

    pay double

    It would cut down on ED use, but I still can't square it with libertarian principles.

    I've come to a contradiction. Time to check my premises.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    You can't square reality with libertarian principles or any other kind of principles. Accept that existence is not arranged around your happiness or comfort and join us on the Utilitarian Side.

  • Mr. Love||

    Lance shows that he's smart. Instead of testifying on his behalf and getting sent to jail for "false testimony", he decided to forfeit his titles (which doesn't matter at all, as everybody will still remember him as the greatest Tour de France cyclist ever anyway). He recognized that the witch hunt against successful sportsmen turned against him and decided to cut his losses. Kudos to him.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Bloomberg is covering the Empire State Bldg shooting. Their pet "counterterrorism expert" is talking about how the most important thing now is for the police to be sure they are not in danger.

    I cannot wait to hear what Hizzoner the Mayor will have top say.

  • Tim||

    Was the shooter in the tea party?

  • Bee Tagger||

    Uh, don't you mean which tea party chapter was he in?

  • Tim||

    Probably he was in all of them.

  • Brett L||

    Nah. He just wanted a salty snack fried in transfat.

  • Brian D||

    And a 20oz. cup of soda.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    BATH SALTZ!!!

  • Brett L||

    Gunman dead

    police shot and killed the gunman near the tourist entrance of the Empire State Building. Reuters reports that two people have died. The Post said that the fatalities include the gunman and an innocent bystander.

  • db||

    Drudge says Bloombeg is reporting that some victims were shot by police.

  • db||

    Bloomberg is reporting that some victims may have been shot 'accidentally' by police.

  • Mike M.||

    The same exact thing he always says: guns are evil and should be banned, blah blah blah, blah blah blah.

  • mr simple||

    This is why you always fire people on a Friday.

  • Rich||

    Actually, make it illegal to fire people. If it saves just one life ....

  • ant1sthenes||

    Taxes caused that guy to crash his plane. I think we have to suspend all taxes too. You know, to protect innocent life.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Even more delicious, Yahoo News is reporting that some of the wounded bystanders were shot by police.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Any single land owner can hold out and stop the whole project. That means everyone has an incentive to do so and the project quickly runs out of money paying each recalcitrant landowner and never gets built.

    Choad, is that you?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Was the shooter in the tea party?

    Well, let's not rush to judgement before all the facts are in, but we can assume he was bitter gun-toting maniac. And, of course, rational, thoughtful, moderates know violence won't solve anything.

  • AuH2O||

    Tasmania attempts to create a smoking-free generation by banning the sale of cigs to people born after 2000:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....-2000.html

    Is there some kind of secret statist-fuckwad competition going on between Britain and Australia?

  • sarcasmic||

    I blame the accent.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Yes, it’s funny how Americans don’t pick up on that. I think it’s ’cause of her accent and the plastic surgery she’s been able to afford.

  • db||

    How would you like it if someone was messing with some stupid person in your family?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Could be Tony.

  • alexdroog||

    NOPD lieutenant issues blanket order to officers demanding they stop all people on bicycles.

    Choice quote:

    If you do not want me in your car with you, observing every move you make, then you need to make sure you are not the officer with the lowest stats."
  • R C Dean||

    Im in ur car, observin yur moves.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    The PD claims the memo was misunderstood; that the problem was officers stopping bicyclists and not filling out the required documentation afterward.

  • Brett L||

    Holy fuck. A female lieutenant with a stick up her ass riding along? Fuck that. Stop 'em all, let God sort 'em out.

  • free2booze||

    Bloomberg and Kelly have confirmed a significant amount of information about the shooting, including the fact that several civilians may have been caught in the crossfire between New York City Police Officers and the suspect, identified as Jeffrey Johnson.
  • Tulpa Doom||

    "See how dangerous guns are? Even police shoot people by accident sometimes!"

  • Mike M.||

    What better place to have yourself a nice long range shootout than in midtown Manhattan.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Based on information from Wikipedia, I calculated the following about Anders Breivik:

    He is 33 now, and when he gets out of prison in 21 years he will be 54, with plenty of his life ahead of him. He killed 77 people, so for each murder he will serve less than 3/10 of a year.

    Life without parole? We're enlightened Norwegians - we don't even know what that is!

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Missed the discussion above, sorry.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    you need to make sure you are not the officer with the lowest stats.

    Recalibrate reasonable suspicion accordingly.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    several civilians may have been caught in the crossfire between New York City Police Officers and the suspect, identified as Jeffrey Johnson.

    Officer safety was maintained, right?

  • LTC(ret) John||

    That is the Prime Directive, right?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement