Reason Morning Links: Blagojevich Corruption Trial Begins, D.C. Teachers Union Buckles, More Election Tampering Accusations for White House

|

Advertisement

NEXT: The Supreme Court Hears the Sounds of Silence

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.

    1. This was excellent – thanks for the link

      1. That Proudhon quote is worth sticking in every column ever written.

    1. It does not make sense to discharge servicepeople on the basis of sexual orientations or disorientations.

      Why not focus on behavior and ability to perform military duty?

  1. That DC teachers’ union contract passed 1,412 – 425. What do you think made it pass by such a huge margin? Maybe it’s the “21.6 percent increase in base pay that will boost the average annual salary of a D.C. educator from $67,000 to about $81,000”.

    1. All of the DC school system’s ills are finally solved! Huzzah!

    2. And I’m sure that no teacher will secretly lower their grading standards to get raises and keep their job.

    3. What is the point of paying teachers more money? As they love to tell us any time there is a proposal to tie pay to test scores, they really don’t have that much of an influence on the academic achievement of a student. It’s all about the parents. Why pay more for an experienced teacher when according to them, we could pay Miguel and Carlos $2/hour and get the same results?

      1. Could have something to do with lots of teachers never having worked in corporate America, and understanding the amount of time and energy that goes into working an office job for 12 months of the year for the same salary that you can make working only 10 months and 6 hours (on average) a day.

        Teaching is not an easy job; I put in 8-10 hour days sometimes, but not as often as I did when I was in the private corporate sector. Grading and planning take up the majority of my time. Being in the classroom is pure fun and I enjoy my students very much. I see a benefit in enjoyment and job satisfaction that an increase in salary and responsibility could never make up.

        But so many of my colleagues became teachers right out of college and don’t appreciate that they have an easy time of it compared to their corporate counterparts. And, they are told about how “noble” a profession teaching is and that their personal sacrifice of higher wages should no longer go overlooked or unrewarded.

        Add in tenure after 3 years and a day, which equals job security for life (essentially – tenured teachers can be fired but it is a long and costly process), and they feel entitled to demand more for doing less than the average blue or white collar earner does.

        1. I have a friend who decided he could make more money in the private sector. He quickly realized the corporate world was way harder work than teaching, so he went back to riding herd on the chillruns.

        2. madbiker,

          If you didn’t go back to our conversation thread from yesterday, madlibertarianguy responded with a more up-to-date picture of state university English part-time work. He drew a much bleaker picture than people I knew a few years ago did, but it sounds closer to the reality of the situation.

          1. Saw that, all the advice is much appreciated.

  2. and it is imperative that Israel avoid any action which leads to further bloodshed,” the [Irish] foreign minister said.

    I’m as peace loving as the next guy, but I think Israel is thinking “or what?” Seriously, if you are going to make threatening remarks you should have some way of backing them up.

    1. He should have said “No fighting unless everyone’s drunk.”

    2. And everyone will hate Israel no matter what it does. It might as well just sink the damn thing and not worry about it.

      1. Since the US hates Israel, can we stop sending them 3 billion + dollars a year?

        1. As soon as we stop sending our annual gifts of 1 billion to the PA, 2 billion to Egypt, 1.5 billion to Russia, and 1 billion to Sudan.

          1. Oh, I almost forgot. We recently started sending over a billion per year to Pakistan.

            1. Aid to Pakistan was drastically cut when Hamas came into power. However, proposing to cut a single dollar worth of aid to Israel is a quick and efficient way to end your political career.

              1. I don’t think that’s correct, Dave. We greatly increased aid to Pakistan last year when the Taliban started making camps in western Pakistan.

        2. While we’re at it, can we pull our navy out of the Arab Gulf and let the Arab Gulf countries defend their own shipping lanes?

      2. Israel would, if self intrest was their only concern, but Israelis also have a strong moral compass.

        1. Israel would, if self intrest was their only concern, but Israelis also have a strong moral compass.

          If I were the prime minister of Israel, I would demand unconditional surrender in exchange for food.

      3. After Israel unloaded the ships, they brought the supplies to a Gaza crossing over land routes. Hamas is refusing to bring the supplies into Gaza.

        Hamas Stopping Transfer of Aid to Gaza

  3. You know, I can see where people might think that offering someone a job in exchange for not running for office might be seen as sleazy, I can’t qite see how it rises to the level of criminality.

    Time was that political jobs were considered the property of the party bosses to be dispensed as gifts to the political loyal and/or useful and furthermore, who the party ran for office was very much the business of those who controlled the party.

    Somehow, in our crusade for ethics and democracy we seem to have ended up with a system that is less ethical and less democratic (in many ways) than the one we once had.

    1. I tend to agree. As much as I dislike Obama, I really don’t see the big deal.

    2. I think it’s the specific laws that outlaw such practice that makes this practice against the law.

      1. I think the interpretation of the laws being floated is bogus and flies in the face of association rights.

        It basically criminalizes the act of belonging to a political party.

        The law has never been interpreted to mean that if members of a political group come together and say, “OK, you will be the candidate for office X, and you will run the party committee, and you will work for a think tank until we need you” it’s a criminal conspiracy. And that’s ludicrous.

        1. That’s not really true. It only applies if your party has primary elections run by the state.

          Assume a Libertarian office-holder (aka, spherical cow) offers an alternative political job to a potential candidate for the Libertarian nomination for Senate in order to keep him from seeking that nomination. It would not be illegal, because Libertarian Party nominations are not determined by primary elections.

          This law essentially only applies to the Big Two parties. They get all the statutory advantages of being the big two, so it is right that they get this disadvantage as well.

    3. It’s a big deal because they are hypocrites. We may criticize laws we do not think should be crimes, but they aren’t even doing that. They’re trying to pretend they didn’t break the law instead of saying there is a bad law on the books that should be repealed. This administrations choices of selective enforcement are quite disturbing. We won’t lay off drug dispensaries even when we say we will because it’s actually legal in those states, but we’ll break laws when they suit us politically.

      1. They’re trying to pretend they didn’t break the law instead of saying there is a bad law on the books that should be repealed.

        No, they aren’t.

        They’re saying that the law banning “offering inducements” should not be interpreted in a manner which would include party officials coordinating an overall election strategy with potential candidates. And I have to agree with them.

        1. But doesn’t this fly in the face of your oft-made argument that it says what it says. For example, state restrictions on free speech are illegitimate because the express words of the First Amendment do not call for exceptions. In other words, if they wanted it to mean something more nuanced, they could have written it that way.

          The same thing applies here. (Admission: I have not read the law, but am assuming for the sake of argument that it bans “offering inducements” as noted above.) Well, it says exactly what it says. Maybe it violates the First Amendment’s freedom of association clause, but that’s not, from what I can gather, the argument being made. If it’s that the law should not be interpreted that way, tough titties. It says what it says.

          1. The term “inducement” would be what is at issue here.

            Basically, if an offer of different employment is an “inducement”, then everyone listing a job in the paper today is breaking the law – because everyone who reads their ad could be considering running for a political office.

            But doesn’t this fly in the face of your oft-made argument that it says what it says.

            No, it doesn’t. I have never argued for wide readings of laws prohibiting private actions. I have argued for narrow readings – the most narrow readings possible. In the absence of a statutory definition of the term “inducement” that includes offers of competing employment, citizens reading the law are entitled to expect that offering employment is legal. A wide reading of the term “inducement” would also criminalize your conduct if you walked up to Ron Paul while he was running for Congress and said, “I wish you would run for President instead; I’d vote for you! [“inducement” in italics]”

            But fine, have it your way. If we take a wider reading, the statute is unconstitutional on its face and anyone ever convicted under it – even if they made direct payments or bribes – should immediately be sprung from the hoosegow.

            1. You misunderstand me (or I wasn’t clear). I’m not talking about narrow or wide interpretations. I’m talking about reading the words exactly as they appear, which as far I know is your position (I wasn’t aware that you believed they should be construed as narrowly as possible, because in that case “speech” would only mean words actually spoken, and not $ to facilitate speech, etc.). In this case, they are wide, so it should be read widely.

              I have also not staked out a position, so your claim that we can do it “my way” is misplaced. I’m only wondering if it conflicts with what I recall you saying before about words meaning what they mean, and we should interpret laws as written (not as intended).

            2. Following up, here’s you in one of your many characteristic slap downs of what words mean:

              In Lovell the SCOTUS defined the press as “every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion”. There is no room in that definition for drawing any distinction whatsoever between the plaintiffs and the NY Times, or between CNN and Hustler, for that matter. Or between CNN, the plaintiffs, Hustler, and Exxon-Mobil.

              https://reason.com/blog/2010/01…..nt_1537620

              It’s a good take. So by the same token you must also agree there is no room in the definition of “offering inducements” for drawing any distinction whatsoever between small inducements, big inducements, private inducements, public inducements, legal inducements, illegal inducements, etc. Which means it’s puzzling for you to now take the position that a ban on offering inducements “should not be interpreted in a manner which would include party officials coordinating an overall election strategy with potential candidates.” By your own logic it should.

    4. As with most such things, I bet the cover-up ends up getting them in more trouble than the crime.

      1. Indeed, if they had nothing to hide, why didn’t they talk? Karma’s a bitch.

    5. You know, I can see where people might think that offering someone a job in exchange for not running for office might be seen as sleazy, I can’t qite see how it rises to the level of criminality.

      Well, the law is actually fairly clear on this. 18 U.S.C. ? 600 makes it unlawful for anyone to “promise any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit” to any person as a “consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party?in connection with any primary election.”

      The only argument is whether dropping out of a primary so that the other candidate is unopposed constitutes “support” of that candidate. Its hard to see what would be more supportive.

      Or, try this: What if, instead of a job, a candidate was offered a bag full of cash to drop out of the primary? Wouldn’t that be bribery? What’s the difference between that and a job offer?

      1. Or, try this: What if, instead of a job, a candidate was offered a bag full of cash to drop out of the primary? Wouldn’t that be bribery? What’s the difference between that and a job offer?

        The bag of cash is quantifiable. The job offer has all sorts of wiggle room regarding it’s intrinsic and measurable value.

        1. Wiggle-room aside, the value is still some number greater than zero.

      2. Yes, I realize it is against the law, my ruminations concern the why of it being against the law.

        And no, I can’t see why party bosses shouldn’t offer party members carpetbags full of cash to act in accordance with the party’s best interest.

        In other words, when I said “I can’t qite[sic] see how it rises to the level of criminality”, I suppose what i meant was, “why did someone feel the need to make this against the law?”

        I suppose, also, that I can’t really abide this conflating political parties into government institutions rather than the private clubs that they out to be.

        1. And no, I can’t see why party Republican bosses shouldn’t offer party members Democrats carpetbags full of cash to act in accordance with the Republican party’s best interest.\

          Really?

          1. That’s not what I said.

      3. I don’t think that would be bribery unless the candidate is already a public official. Even then, since dropping out of a primary is not related to the execution of his office, it probably wouldn’t be bribery.

      4. Oh, you’re using a different statute than I had seen.

        The case is much better here.

        The problem is the question of “support”. I don’t think we can say that each and every citizen not running for a particular office is “supporting” the unopposed person who is running. And that’s what your reading of the law would require.

        You and I are “supporting” the remaining candidate, since we’re not running, by your argument. If we take jobs during the campaign, is whoever hired us a crook?

      5. If 18 USC 600 is read literally, then nearly every political appointee since its enactment got his job illegally. I think that everyone realizes that most political appointees get their jobs because they are campaign donors, supporters, former campaign staff members, or otherwise politically influential. That is, the appointments are rewards for past support or inducements for future support.

    6. “We’re looking to fundamentally change the status quo in Washington. It’s a status quo that extends beyond any particular party, and right now that status quo is fighting back with everything it’s got, with the same old tactics that divide and distract us from solving the problems people face. We’re up against the idea that it’s acceptable to say anything and do anything to win an election.”

      -Barack Obama, January 26, 2008

    7. I think (aside from partisanship, which the real reason people care) that there is a slight difference between giving someone a job because they are in your party, and giving someone a job in exchange for some favor — asking the nominee to drop out of a race inhabits a grey area in between the spoils system (undesirable but legitimate) and just asking for money like Rod Blagojevich (clearly corrupt).

      If we were talking about situations where accepting the offered job would legally require that the person drop out of the election, then it wouldn’t be a quid pro quo, just a politically strategic decision.

  4. Maybe it’s the “21.6 percent increase in base pay that will boost the average annual salary of a D.C. educator from $67,000 to about $81,000”.

    $81k/yr puts them safely in the top 10% of incomes. And they deserve it! For being underpaid.

    1. The first time I read it, I didn’t realize the performance pay raise was in addition to the base pay raise.

      “A voluntary performance pay program to begin this fall could add $20,000 to $30,000 to D.C. teachers’ salaries … could raise total compensation for some instructors to $140,000, officials estimate.”

      Of course, with the performance pay system, seniority no longer matters, but even getting kicked out is pretty generous.

      “Teachers with good evaluations who are unable to find a job have a year’s grace period, at full pay, to continue the search. They can also opt for a $25,000 buyout or early retirement with full benefits if they have 20 or more years of service.”

      As a freelancer who pays for my own healthcare and retirement and has to hunt for gigs, it’s hard to imagine those kinds of perks. I had a surreal conversation with an in-law who is a teacher complaining about making “crap money”, who makes more than I do, plus a benefit package.

    2. The end of that sentence says something about bringing their salaries into line with the surrounding suburbs.

      The starting teacher salary in Texas is $33,000, and the weighted average is $47,000.

    3. I am not certain the DC teachers are going to like the increase in work hours and oversight that will accompany this salary boost.

      I met Michelle Rhee a few times, during my tenure in the Ed Policy division at a certain Princeton, NJ based testing company. She’s a workaholic who has good ideas in general. She approaches running a school district like a CEO runs a business – almost like a Jack Welch acolyte for the public sector.

      Teachers won’t be getting paid to take an easy ride in D.C. Abolishing tenure is a ballsy (and correct move) but now the real competition for job security begins.

      Comrade Zero does raise a good point about lowering grading standards, but that just means teachers ought to be supervised more carefully and that assignments need to become more objective and assessments more summative, rather than the subjective-creative, formative assessments that are all the rage right now in educational practice.

  5. Also the sour-grapes comments on the Washington Post article about the contract are delicious.

  6. http://www.city-journal.org/20…..pathy.html

    Great article in City Journal about aide to the poor.

    1. I especially like this paragraph

      Not all British children received a good education before the state intervened: that was as vanishingly unlikely then as it is today. But it is clear that poor people?incomparably poorer than anyone in Britain today?were nonetheless capable of making sacrifices to carry out their highly responsible decisions. They did not need the state to tell them that their children should learn to read, write, and reckon. There is no reason to suppose that, left alone, the astonishing progress in the education of the population during the first three-quarters of the nineteenth century would not have continued. The “problem” that the state was solving in its destruction of the voluntary system was its own lack of power over the population.

      1. Can you link this article? I don’t understand why people post truncated links here.

        1. because I never bothered to learn HTML. sometimes the Reason server will make the link hot. Sometimes not. Just go to cityjournal.org and read the Darymple article.

          1. [a href=”http://the.link.com”]link text[/a]

            Replace the brackets with greater than and less than signs.

              1. So how’d I fuck it up?

                1. I’m going to guess you left off a quote on the href property.

    2. Better than Dalrymple’s usual morality plays–especially the detail about Nyerere (sp?–can’t find the article at the moment). Speaking of overbearing moral rectitude – check out the turd Alain de Botton dropped on the home page.

      1. I like him. His writing on drugs and crime is very good. His writing is what finally convinced me of that drug addiction is nothing but an excuse to be a degenerate and a myth perpetuated by the rehab industry.

        1. Dalrymple’s generally a good writer but his Toryism is often insufferable.

          1. A bit like John Derbyshire in that regard. But, I can tolerate the Toryism if the writer is otherwise smart and free thinking, which both Darymple and Derbyshire are.

  7. Obama administration accused of offering another candidate a job in exchange for not running for the U.S. Senate.

    What if they threw an election and everybody was bribed not to run?

    1. I didn’t run and I didn’t get a job. I cry foul.

  8. It’s International Sex Workers Day, so be sure to visit a foreign hooker and let her know how much you appreciate the job she does.

    1. Foreign hooker? Why are you excluding professional ladies here in the United States? Why do you hate America?

    2. In the future that will be legal in the USA too.

    3. Stop calling them hookers. They are companions!

      1. I think you can call them whatever the hell you want after you pay them. I’m pretty sure that’s part of the deal.

    4. Or as Tony calls it: Mother’s Day.

      1. Maybe if it was International House Of Pancakes Sex Worker Day.

      2. Since when is a truck stop international?

    5. It’s International Sex Workers Day, so be sure to visit a foreign hooker and let her know how much you appreciate the hand job she does.

    6. I’m starting to think SugarFree is Starchild.

      1. Sadly, I am not the intergalactic messiah figure in P-Funk mythology.

        1. Was refering more to the Starchild that advocates for sex workers.

          http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_vKS4….._mikeS.jpg

        2. You are, however, my Jedi Master in H&R posting Saccharin Man.

  9. Joe Biden finally said something not-stupid.
    http://www.jta.org/news/articl…..tilla-raid

  10. http://nalert.blogspot.com/201…..s-too.html

    The student debt bubble is going to destroy the housing bubble.

    1. One problem with that article?

      If you go to the link-within-a-link, the author claims that the reason we have a student loan problem is because of the “repugnant greed” of lenders.

      No inkling of the fact that the Congress set up a system where the loan payments had a federal guarantee, and that therefore every last one of these loans was a loan the Congress wanted these lenders to make.

      1. Very true. But I think the first point is good. I look at my neighborhood or my inlaws neighborhood in Boston. The houses are all owned by aging boomers. When those people die who is going to buy those houses at current rates?

        1. The children of Mexicans. The boomers still have 30 years to go.

        2. Don’t worry, when the next new home buyer credits come out, it’ll be for $16K per home purchase. And when that doesn’t work….and so on and so on.

  11. # Obama administration accused of offering another candidate a job in exchange for not running for the U.S. Senate.

    So, who is surprise a Chicago politician is using this tactic?

  12. Total combined United States national debt officially reaches $13 trillion milestone.

    1. What do we win!!??

      **looks on expectantly….waiting….waiting…**

    2. Is this news from 1982*?

      *Random-ass guess of the year the U.S. government’s liabilities (including, of course, unfunded liabilities) was $13T.

    1. This is definitely a guy I want “defending” me and my community. If he can take out a 5 month old cat…

      I’m referring him to our local sheriff’s office. They could use another dickhead on the force trained law enforcement professional like this man.

      Thank you, Citizen Hmm for the lead!

    2. He shot a tiny kitten in a cage. That guy deserves to die from the infection following a poorly-executed castration. What a fucking asshole, even for a cop.

      1. How about coated in Stern-o and slowly chafed to death?

    3. The reflexive hatred for law enforcement officers around here sickens me. You anarchists don’t know anything about the pressure brave public servants like Officer Houston have to go through to keep you safe. One kitten that was, let’s not forget, walking on his car is a small price to pay.

      1. Spoof right?

        Probably not. I’ve read your dreck JD. GTFO here.

      2. That reads like a spoof. It’s Dunphy’s actual position, but he wouldn’t state it that way.

    4. My apologies to the the AWOL ball buster. I forgot he was moving.

    5. I must admit, I didn’t get all worked up too much about the dog shootings. But a KITTEN! This means war! Hear me roar! Meow.

    6. If it were a corporate CEO who shot a kitten, you guys would be celebrating his right to bear arms. Hypocrites.

      1. That’s ridiculous. If a corporate CEO wants bear arms, he should be shooting bears, and ridding this country of its most terrifying menace, after Congress.

  13. Evil Ohio cop blatantly steals bambi. Then has the audacity to threaten not to kill her.

    There may be hope for the portion of humanity in blue uniforms?

  14. Query: Does the headline “Teachers Union Buckles” mean that their knees buckled under the weight of the bags of cash they are hauling home?

    Because when I see a 21% pay increase, I know someone cracked, but it wasn’t the union.

    1. No no, it’s the solid gold belt buckles they can now afford.

  15. He said there should be a focus on whether follow-up checks on licence holders were “adequate” and whether there should be a greater role for GPs and the NHS in assessing whether gun owners’ mental health was deteriorating.

    Lib Dem MP John Pugh questioned how a “simple taxi driver could possibly justify the apparently lawful possession of such a formidable and devastating arsenal” and how killings could be prevented in future. Mrs May said it would not be right for her to comment before the police inquiry was completed.

    Labour’s John Woodcock – the MP for neighbouring Barrow and Furness – asked for any review to look at, not only firearms legislation but at local mental health services and to look at “how an apparently reserved member of the community suddenly snapped and was capable of such evil deeds”.

    And Labour MP Chris Williamson said the government should not “rule out the possibility of the complete prohibition of private ownership of firearms as the best way of preventing fugure atrocities like this”.

    BBC

    OMFG GUNZ

    1. A shotgun and a .22 == devastating arsenal?

      Holy fuck. Just how in the hell did that country survive WWII?

      1. You know, once we get the progressives sorted out over here, we should probably go ahead and conquer the UK and turn it into a prison colony for leftists.

  16. The reflexive hatred for law enforcement officers around here sickens me.

    Fuck you, cocksucker.

    1. Recalibrate your meter.

      1. might need to be replaced, that was pretty blatant

  17. the “repugnant greed” of lenders.

    It’s predation I tell ya!

  18. No, YOU recalibrate YOUR meter.

    That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it.

  19. http://corner.nationalreview.c…..MyNzE4YTM=

    this is something else.

    Four months after a devastating earthquake ripped apart their country, the people of Haiti are still suffering, so you’d think a multi-million-dollar donation of vegetable seeds would be welcome news. But two Haitian groups, backed by the activist group Grassroots International, are urging farmers to do the unthinkable: burn the donated seeds.

    This evil campaign puts politics ahead of humanity, and it is sad that charities like the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the New York Community Trust are funding Grassroots International’s perversely named “social justice” campaign.

    The two groups, the Peasant Movement of Papay (MPP) and the National Peasant Movement of the Congress of Papay (MPMKP), argue that the hybrid seeds donated by Monsanto will somehow undermine the “food sovereignty” of Haiti. They also assert, without any scientific basis, that the donated seeds are somehow unsafe. Nothing could be further from the truth, as seeds like those donated have been used safely for generations.

    At first blush this might seem like just the latest battle over the use of genetically modified (GM) crops, similar to Zambia’s 2002 decision to let its citizens starve rather than accept GM wheat. But the donated seeds aren’t even GM. Rather than invite a challenge, Monsanto worked with the government of Haiti to arrange the donation of hybrids seeds, similar to seeds backyard gardeners use regularly. Both GM and hybrid seeds are safe, although Haiti doesn’t have the regulatory infrastructure to use GM seeds. But that didn’t stop these “sustainable agriculture” zealots from interfering.

    It isn’t the crop they’re against, it’s the corp ? they just don’t like private companies. They’re convinced that “agri-business” is a bad thing, as if private companies shouldn’t be in the business of innovating and selling agricultural products to people trying to grow food.

    “We must defend the use of safe agricultural technologies to improve the human condition.” That’s what Nobel Peace Prize winner Dr. Norman Borlaug told me on the phone just weeks before he passed away last year. Dr. Borlaug saved an estimated one billion lives by greatly increasing crop yields in developing countries, earning him the monicker “Father of the Green Revolution.” Among other accomplishments, he popularized the very types of seeds that the sustainable food movement wants Haitian farmers to burn in a public protest on June 4.

    The group behind the campaign, Grassroots International, is backed by a long list of shadowy foundations, such as the Tides Foundation, which support radical left-wing causes. They wrap their advocacy in the cloak of social justice ? but the Haitian people have suffered enough.

    All of us who are concerned about the well-being of the Haitian people should stand up against the radical “sustainable agriculture” movement, which seeks to turn back the clock on Dr. Borlaug’s lifesaving work.

    ? Jeff Stier is associate director of the American Council on Science and Health.

    1. I seriously doubt starving people are going to burn seeds. Environ-mental organizations are much better at convincing corrupt governments than hungry people.

      1. You’re absolutely right. We should encourage the enviro-jihadis to go to the starving Haitians and personally take those witchcraft seeds and burn them in Gaia’s cleansing organic fire.

        (Because I think it’s important that Haitians also get protein in their diet for health reasons.)

  20. Just how WHY in the hell did that country survive WWII?

  21. Van Canto – A Cappella Metal Group. Five singers plus a drummer. Really.

    Master of Puppets.

      1. Muppets have always creeped me out, but that is pretty good.

  22. John|6.3.10 @ 11:43AM|#

    A bit like John Derbyshire in that regard. But, I can tolerate the Toryism if the writer is otherwise smart and free thinking, which both Darymple and Derbyshire are.

    One of those guys devoted his biweekly National Review column to perpetuating one of the most bold face of lies ever conceived, that being the British know how to cook. I forget which, if was Derby or Dary, anyone remember?

  23. Why are we “aiding” Gaza anyway? Every dollar Hamas doesn’t have to spend feeding itself is a dollar it can spend on weapons.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.