Booty and the Bailout
Columnist Ron Hart writes about Somali pirates and the Dems and Reps on the bailout:
Republicans seem poised to not vote on a bailout for the poorly managed automobile industry. They find it much easier to adhere to their principles when they are not actually in power. Letting a non-viable business fail, so that it can be replaced by a more efficient one, is simple economic Darwinism. To sum up, Republicans do not want Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest taught to our kids in school, but they do like it applied to business.
Democrats are torn on the bailout for the American automakers. On one hand, they want to feather the beds of the unions, who count on them making their jobs just costly enough that the company they work for can stay solvent long enough for elder union members to retire. On the other hand, they need someone to pay their $18 million a year Viagra bills well into their golden years. In return, Democrats want Detroit to make smaller cars so their limousines can get around them in Washington, D.C., traffic on their way to a private jet that will whisk them off to a global warming summit.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I can't reach the link, whats this about pirates?
Its not about pirates.. its about big booty's.. hahaha
To sum up, Republicans do not want Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest taught to our kids in school, but they do like it applied to business.
I'm sorry but no. The Republicans were the ones that hit the faucet with a sledge hammer and started the federal financial hemorrhaging. It's only since they all became lame ducks that they want to give the finger to the ones that gave them the boot.
Oh boy, another copyright thread.
on their way to a private jet that will whisk them [Dems] off to a global warming summit
Not one of the Detroit bigwigs had the balls to challenge their inquisitors on the subject of their private jet transportation choices. Begging makes one timid.
I want to be a Somali Pirate! Arrghh!
From the linked column:
"Then they will apply for, and get, a U.S. Congressional taxpayer-funded bailout. Arrrgh!"
I'm afraid Ron Hart flunked Pirate 101:
'Why talk like a pirate - and how . . .
'Arrr! - This one is often confused with arrrgh, which is of course the sound you make when you sit on a belaying pin. "Arrr!" can mean, variously, "yes," "I agree," "I'm happy," "I'm enjoying this beer," "My team is going to win it all," "I saw that television show, it sucked!" and "That was a clever remark you or I just made." And those are just a few of the myriad possibilities of Arrr!'
Ron Hart needs a remedial composition class.
Pirate ABCs
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q ARRRRRRRRR S T U V W X Y Z
"I'm sorry but no. The Republicans were the ones that hit the faucet with a sledge hammer and started the federal financial hemorrhaging. It's only since they all became lame ducks that they want to give the finger to the ones that gave them the boot."
The Republicans haven't controlled Congress for two years. The Dems have done nothing to stop spending. It was a Democratic Congress that gave Paulson his $700 billion. They could have said no and there would have been nothing Bush could do about it. I suppose the Whigs were big spenders to. How long do the Dems have to be in charge before someone at Reason holds them responsible for spending?
Ron Hart looks good compared to Steve Chapman; but just barely.
Well, you know what they say! Easy come, easy go!
jess
http://www.privacy.es.tc
I love the UN order to the pirates to cease and desist. Yeah that will show them. We have been dealing with pirates for 100s of years. You hang them on the high seas. Since governments won't do that, we have pirates again. If we bring them back to Europe or the US they will get a trial and can apply for asylum. We could end the pirate problem in about a month if we just had any will.
On the plus side, this increase in the level of piracy will at least lessen the effects of global warming.
Shorter Ron Hart: "Elephant good! Donkey bad! Hulk smash!"
The Republicans haven't controlled Congress for two years. The Dems have done nothing to stop spending. It was a Democratic Congress that gave Paulson his $700 billion.
Forget it; the crybaby democrats who are taking full control of the government in a few more weeks will still be blaming republicans every step of the way even as they continue to run the deficit up to a trillion dollars or more next year.
Taking responsibility just isn't in their platform.
Am I the only one who thinks that column was written after a fortnight of singing bawdy songs and telling dirty lies over a barrel of cheap rum? Was this column supposed to be largely incoherent?
As much as I wish we could place the blame squarely on Democrats, this was a good old fashioned, bipartisan, pound-you-in-the-ass fucking with blame a' plenty to go all around.
I mean, that is just so ridiculously laughable.
I like this line.
The young Somali pirates are said to be drunk and on cocaine as they run rampant, and both Obama and Bush have been mum on the matter. Perhaps they are fearful of sounding hypocritical since that is the way both spent their formative years.
"Republicans [...] like [Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest] applied to business
I mean, that is just so ridiculously laughable."
Insofar as they are voting agains the Detroit bailout they do. The question is do they get any credit for being against it or do Libertarians bang their rattles and scream, you aren't pure enough!! Who wants the bailout and who doesnt? The ones who support it, Republican or Democrat, ought to be criticized. The ones against it ought to get some credit for being so even if you think they are against it for the wrong reasons whatever those are.
What do we do with a drunken sailor?
What do we do with a drunken sailor?
Tie'em to the mast and cornhole him later
what we do with the responsible taxpayer?
what do we do with the responsible tax payer?
Tie him to our debts and cornhole him forever . . .
Fine. Then let's stop reducing it to partisan bickering. Hart's pretending that only Democrats want to bail out their buddies, which is patently ridiculous.
Hart's pretending that only Democrats want to bail out their buddies, which is patently ridiculous.
Democrats heavily favored the bank bailout while Republicans heavily opposed.I assume the auto bailout will be even more partisanly lopsided.
Really?? Then what was all this fuss about a "filibuster proof" majority? If the Republicans were actually holding to their supposed principles of freer-markets and smaller government this bailout simply wouldn't have occurred.
In other words John, no one is NOT blaming the Dems because we all KNOW they are the party of spending and economic idiocy. What we are also doing is blaming the Republicans for not being the check valve on it like they claim to be.
See: Hypocrisy
You point to me one reason blog post or article holding up the Dems as a party of small government and I will concede that your argument isn't a strawman. Until then, you are trying blame reason for pointing out what is truly a Republican failing to abide by their principles.
Darwin's theory had nothing to do with survival of the fittest (that's a social Darwinist term from decades after Darwin's own death). Also, natural selection and sexual selection are necessary for the plausibility of evolution, but not sufficient. ie, one can believe in natural selection and still not believe in evolution.
In the first vote--the one that got rejected--one-third of Republicans voted *for* the measure. But keep your partisan blinders on if that makes you happy.
I call bullshit.
Senate Makeup: 49 Dem : 49 Rep: 2 Ind
Senate Vote: 75:25 in favor.
Breakdown of Nays: 15 Rep:9 Dem:1 Ind (Sanders)
If that is "heavily opposed" then John is a monkey's uncle.
What I want to know is how pirates got away with stealing an entire supertanker the other day. How can you hide something like that?
I'd expect John or joe to be complaining about Hart's opinion piece since he's clearly taking shots at both sides. It may be written poorly, and perhaps not completely honest in the sniping, but I rather enjoyed it.
If you see partisanship in everything, perhaps you're a partisan.
Mike Laursen
I don't think the tanker's hidden. It's just that with the crew being held hostage noone wants to try any kind of rescue attempt that could get them killed.
Ah, I see.
Ravac,
I think it was a funny article for what it is worth.
Kwix,
I didn't realize that many Republicans rolled. That is just sad. I stand corrected.
House final vote:
Yeas / Nays
Democratic 172 63
Republican 91 108
OK try Democrats heavily favored while a majority of Republicans opposed.
SIV,
It takes both Chambers of Congress to pass a bill and the majority of Senate Republicans voted for it.
Face the facts, if the Republicans were doing their job of "shrinking government" it wouldn't have happened, Democrats be damned.
But they didn't, and despite some Dems jumping to the 'Nay' side of the vote it still passed like grandpa's Christmas gas. Not so silent and just as deadly.
You have to be shitting me.
In fact, the U.N. does have the deterrent of Article 110 of the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Convention, which forbids ships to fire on pirates. Instead, and I am not making this up, they are first required to board their ship to politely inquire of the pirates whether they are, in fact, pirates. I am pretty sure the "law" has them identify the pirates by their eye patches and always woefully undersized treasure chests that never seem to be able to hold all of their gold.
I want to be a Somali Pirate! Arrghh!
Dude they are probably Muslims...
Which means you have to get up at 5am to pray and oh yeah....YOU CAN"T DRINK!
seriously Somali pirates are the worst pirate gig around.
They must be bean pie-rates.
yuk yuk yuk
Yes, he is shitting you.
Article 110 reads:
It addresses nothing other than the right of a ship on the high seas to be unmolested by foreign warships without probable cause and does not "forbid firing upon a vessel". More importantly, it explicitly gives the warship rights to board and inspect another vessel if it is suspected of piracy, or even flying the wrong flag. If the pirates were to fire at said ship, I suspect that rules of engagement would take precedent but I don't have time to read UN regulations all day.
Mike Laursen
To add to what I said, in spite of all the pious statements issued by various politicians against piracy the tanker is still considered the owners respsonsibility.
I suspect that there is little political will to fight piracy since no leader sees a political prize in the same way as on that would come from say fighting domestic street crime. There are no voters interested. Piracy is something that happens to rich Greek ship ownwers and the asian crews on their ships.
In the end a ransom will be negotiated and paid. If it ever gets to the point that the cost of ransoms starts to exceed the potential cost of taking military action against the pirates things might change.
It also occurs to me that if ships cannot avoid sailing in these waters it might be worthwhile setting up some kind of convoy system.
There was once a rumor that Chuck Norris was beaten by pirates.
That Rumor is a lie.
The rumor was reportedly spread by Chuch Norris himself to lure pirates into fighting him and thus meeting their doom.
Pirates are not known to be very smart.
Which means you have to get up at 5am to pray and oh yeah....YOU CAN"T DRINK!
I wouldn't assume these are the most halal guys in the world.
I wouldn't assume these are the most halal guys in the world.
Why not?
The 9/11 asswipes went to a titty bar and drank on 9/10.
A friend of mind traded a six-pack of crappy beer for an ounce of hash in Pakistan. He had to ask a total of one (1) cab drivers to make the deal.
Muslims drink and "good Christian girls" fuck. Not all of 'em, but enough.
I was gonna answer because you make an ass out of u and me, but J sub D's answer is better.
Hart is one of the funniest libertarian writers working today. He is right about the UN Law on this. He works well with facts intermixed with humor. He certainly makes valid points.
Ron Rocks!
Which means you have to get up at 5am to pray and oh yeah....YOU CAN"T DRINK!
seriously Somali pirates are the worst pirate gig around.
Actually the article states that they are drunk and high on coke while engaging in piracy.
The real downside is that the outfits are not at all sexy. No tricorn hats. No leather boots. You don't even get to wear BDUs and berets like any self-respecting paramilitary outfit.
Agreed, the smartest guy writing op/ed humor today. He is a big hit here in NC.
And sodomy, don't forget the sodomy.
Sodomy is such a lonely word...
All the bad guys don't drink. Hilter, Bin Laden, Bill Clinton.
As Hart pointed out in a column, "Do you know why Hitler did not drink Tequila?--it just made him mean."
Here is a funny column Hart wrote about Thanksgiving:
http://www.newsherald.com/articles/family_69917___article.html/year_live.html?orderby=TimeStampAscending&oncommentsPage=1&showRecommendedOnly=0#slComments
He is damn good.