Natural Disasters

Reason Morning Links: Al Qaeda, Wildfires, and Flying Saucers

|

• The White House wants to bring back the Superfund tax.

• The latest Al Qaeda propaganda tape highlights the president's fading popularity, Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts, and Obama's Islamic-sounding name.

• Hundreds evacuate their homes north of Flagstaff as wildfires approach.

• China unchains the yuan.

• The mysteries of the Florida Tea Party.

• The art of faking UFO footage.

NEXT: An End to Spending Excess

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. I was on a Southwest flight last week with over 140 heads, nearly all of them human.

  1. The Consequences of Mortgage Credit Expansion: Evidence from the U.S. Mortgage Default Crisis
    …The expansion in mortgage credit from 2002 to 2005 to subprime zip codes occurs despite sharply declining relative (and in some cases absolute) income growth in these neighborhoods. In fact, 2002 to 2005 is the only period in the last eighteen years when income and mortgage credit growth are negatively correlated. We show that the expansion in mortgage credit to subprime zip codes and its dissociation from income growth is closely correlated with the increase in securitization of subprime mortgages. …

    Bernanke says crisis ‘no comparison’ to Great Depression

    1. Your Bernanke story is from Dec 01, 2008. A little late with that one.

      1. Your Bernanke story is from Dec 01, 2008. A little late with that one.

        The story being from 2008 means Bernake was contradicting the crisis-speak the govt used in its power grab, even as he was fearmongering elsewhere.

        Transcript: Charlie Gibson Interviews President Bush
        …BUSH: Well, that was, of course, the crystallization. When you have the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Fed ]Ben Bernanke] say, if we don’t act boldly, we could be in a depression greater than the Great Depression, that’s an “uh-oh” moment. But you got to understand, leading up to that we had been bailing water in this way: AIG was failing; other big houses on Wall Street needed to be merged, one failed — …

        1. My earlier Bernanke article has him speaking in Nov 2008. Here he is in Sept:

          Inside the Meltdown
          ANNOUNCER: On September 18th, 2008, the secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, and the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, arrived for an emergency meeting at the Capitol….

          JOE NOCERA: Bernanke said, “If we don’t do this tomorrow, we won’t have an economy on Monday.”…

          1. Pardon the repost, but this article is so wonderfully relevant to the above:

            Credit crunch? What credit crunch?

            1. My ass!

  2. The latest Al Qaeda propaganda tape

    More proof that criticizing the president is tantamount to treason.

    1. +1 😉

  3. But Mr. Obama’s leverage has been minimal, and in the end it may have been the threat of a Congressional bill’s protectionist actions against Chinese products that convinced Beijing that it had to begin to free its currency.[Emphasis mine]

    That’s odd. I thought the financial wizards (yeah Krugman, I’m looking at you) and the Sociopath-in-Chief were supposed the charm the Chicoms into just loving us (to financial death) as we spend money we don’t have.

    I realize the Chicoms need us to consume their inexpensive goods and they have a vested interest in having our economy not tank as they hold so much of our debt, but something stinks here.

    China doesn’t appear to want its people to recognize and realize the tremendous wealth potential they have; I thought Progressive policy espoused “spreading the wealth around.” With so many Maoist admirers in this administration, does Krugman, Timmah, et al., really want to save the dollar or just have the US pull a Greece and have the Yuan as the the world currency? The cognitive dissonance here is a bit astounding, not to mention the pure unmitigated gumption.

    I also find it ironic that the US wants to dictate natural resource consumption of the Chicoms when they hold us essentially by the frick and frack as a result of holding so much of our debt. How does one say “paper tiger” in Cantonese or Mandarin?

    Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t the US debt China is holding unsecured? Perhaps maybe that is why China is being compliant here? It sure doesn’t seem like a free market mechanism here on either side, keeping both interest rates (US) and currency value artificially low (China).

    1. It’s not unsecured. The tax-slavery of the American producer-class was put up as collateral.

      1. Yes, and as the productive class dwindles and is even more overtaxed and Uncle Sugar government expands government jobs, what exactly are we going to be producing? Unicorn farts? Last I checked, that supply has been dwindling at a rate infinitely faster than the Gulf spill is increasing, with the entitlement class clamoring for more and more magical creature methane.

        1. As long as it’s only the lunatic fringe screaming about taxes, it will never end.

          1. Can a fringe be bigger than the ornamented object and still be called a fringe?

            1. Chicks and ducks and geese better scurry
              When I take you out in the surrey,
              When I take you out in the surrey with the fringe on top!
              Watch that fringe and see how it flutters
              When I drive them high steppin’ strutters.
              Nosey pokes’ll peek thru’ their shutters and their eyes will pop!

              1. Ah, yes …

            1. I know they’re out there.

  4. President declines to participate in the Wave

    1. I’m surprised he didn’t partake in the collective action. Only for the commoners, I suppose.

    2. This may be the second Obama action that I’ve agreed with.

  5. From my weekend threadjack! I have been following this case, and just throwing this one out for discussion amongst ye.

    Oklahoma City pharmacist Jerome Ersland is charged with first-degree murder in the May 19 shooting death of a would-be robber. The charge alleges Ersland shot Antwun Parker, 16, while he was incapacitated and lying on his back.

    What you think? Should he stand trial or is he getting a bum rap?

    1. I have a hard time having any sympathy for the robber. He would still be a live today if he hadn’t tried to rob against the Pharmacist. When you threaten violence against someone it’s only natural to react with violence. If a cop had done this he wouldn’t be facing murder charges, or even be charged with anything.

      1. The state gets jealous when private actors deliver justice. After spending a few minutes reviewing the story, there appears to be a lot more evidence supporting the propositions that the state has an incompetent medical examiner (par for the course), a racist politically motivated prosecution and overall law enforcement corruption than the proposition that the pharmacist murdered the sub human ape that attempted to rob him.

        1. The robber is dead! Where is our cut? Robbers are not handled by ANYBODY unless we get a cut of the loot. You, the guy with the smoking gun, it’s coming out of your ass instead.

    2. If he thought the perp still had a gun, then it was probably a good shoot.

      1. Me think this guy was a pharmacist for a reason. Not a quick enough thinker.

        Nurse: “Doctor, the man you just gave a clean bill of health to dropped dead right as he was leaving the office”.

        Doctor: “Turn him around, make it look like he was walking in.”

    3. At the preliminary hearing, the medical examiner testified Parker was unconscious from the head shot when he was shot five times in the abdomen.

      “Because otherwise someone would move the first time they were shot and ? you couldn’t tightly cluster a group of five gunshot wounds all essentially parallel to one another,” Trant testified.

      This sounds awfully Michael West-ish to me. If a person is laying on the ground and struggling to get up, it wouldn’t be hard to fire rounds parallel to each other into their abdomen, which is the part of their body that’s moving the least.

      Also as Reason favorite Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, “detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an upraised knife.” If you put someone in fear for their life, they should not be expected to limit their retaliatory force to rational levels.

      1. Your Honor, we find the prosecutor guilty, and demand that he be hanged at dawn1

    4. Weird, this sounds exactly like the older accusations against the cop last week who killed a guy on a marijuana bust. Pharmacist should have been a cop.

      Seriously, though, there’s no way it’s murder — even if the kill itself was not legal, it was the product of a reaction to a highly stressful situation created by the deceased. No way I would find the guy guilty if I was on that jury, unless there’s something more to the story.

    5. Wasn’t there a videotape of this from the store’s own security camera? Thought I remembered watching a clip showing this…

      If it’s the same clip, then the D.Pharm shoots the robber once and the robber falls over. The D.Pharm then walks past the unconscious robber to another counter, picks up another handgun (or reloads, I forget), walks back to the robber, stands over him, and shoots him.

      I remember looking at the clip and, while I was really sympathetic for the D. Pharm, I thought that it was hard to argue that the robber was a threat at that point. I think murder sounds excessive for what he did, but I’d probably convict for manslaughter, if I was unfortunate enough to be on that jury.

  6. The idea that the US strong armed China into changing its policy is fucking hilarious. (yes the fucking is required due to the degree of absurdity of that statement)

  7. The White House wants to bring back the Superfund tax.

    Surprise, surprise, surprise!

    1. As surprised as Miss Lou Ann Poovy when she exclaimed, “Oh, Gomer!”

      1. Miss Poovie is a very beautiful lady, and I don’t blame any man for whistling at her when he sees her.

        1. Uh Gomer, I got sumthin’ I gotta get off my chest…a little sumthin’ happened ‘tween me and Lou Ann while you were in the Marines; my Cary Grant impersonation finally won her over…

          1. That’s alrighty, Goober. You see, something happened between me and this handsome sergeant…

    2. We libertarians need to be flexible on tax increases.

        1. Unless you’re sarcastic? I can’t really tell…

  8. Portugal up 1-0 on the Norks, starting the 2nd half.

    1. Best Korea is playing like their lives depend on this match. And they just might. This game is being telecast live in their home country.

      1. They are probably dead anyway for having seen the outside world. I read where a North Korean cheerleading team was allowed to go to an international competition in Japan. When they got back, all of them had to swear that they would reveal nothing about what they saw outside the country, they all spent months in re-education camps, and many were sent to prison or executed.

        1. This is a bit silly. There’s at least one player who actually plays professionally in Japan. THESE guys, at least, are allowed a wee bit of luxury in Kim’s Madhouse.

          1. That’s Jong Tae-Se. He was actually born in Japan to South Korean parents and has lived his entire life in Japan, where he currently plays in the J-League for Kawasaki Frontal. Jong is only “eligible to play for the DPRK after handing back his South Korean citizenship and [being] handed his new passport at the North Korean consulate in Tokyo.” Which is a big move.

            1. I bet he has never actually sat foot in the country. If he has, he is nuts. I know playing internationally would be fun and all. But, you have to be insane to put yourself under the jurisdiction of Kim to do it.

          2. They are the only ones.

            1. No shit, John.

        2. You fucking right-wingers always picking on Kim Jong Il, you’re just a bunch of racist Ron Paul cocksuckers!

        1. What’s with Slovenia and Slovakia? They should have the ladies from Hostel instead of Slovakian Beiber and whoever’s Slovenian grandmother as photographs. Brazil had the right idea. Also, KJI looks remarkably healthy in his picture, he usually looks more pasty and tallow.

          1. I think ‘venia’s is one of those middle-aged men who look like old lesbians.

            1. or vice-versa.

    2. 2-0 in the 53rd. Simao with the goal. The Norks are likely done.

      1. Wow. Almeida scores to make it 3 not many seconds later.

    3. 3-0 now

    4. Eusebio is well pleased.

    5. 4-0

      Does soccer have a mercy rule?

      1. no. Portugal needs the goals to secure a tie breaker with Ivory Coast.

    6. Thiago makes it 4. 60 minutes gone. It’s all over for Kim’s boys.

      1. Isn’t this where the “live feed” to N. Korea goes to a propaganda break and returns with Dear Leader’s Team holding a 10-4 lead?

    7. At least Ronaldo still hasn’t scored. He’s hit the post a couple of times. He must be frustrated. That makes me smile.

      1. He just knocked one in.

      2. At least it lasted for a little while.

      3. There’s no player in the world I despise more than that whiny little bitch.

    8. Li?dson makes it 5.

    9. Shit. Ronaldo scored. Sounds like it was entertaining, though.

      6-0.

    10. Thiago = 7.

      Holy shit, this is getting stupid.

      Norks have completely given up. They might not make it to the 3rd group game.

      1. As my employee just noted: “Wow, North Korea… worst half-time speech ever.”

        1. How does your gimp employee speak through a ball gag?

            1. Good luck with that. I filter all my posts with the anon bot app. LOL

    11. Chile v Schweiz ought to be a better game.

      1. The only thing limiting my schaudenfreude is that some of the NK players may not survive – literally. I know I’ve mentioned this before, but I wonder if “The Captain” has an Uday Hussein-like position with the NK soccer team.

        1. I would have preferred the Norks to get a result, but certainly on sporting grounds only.

          1. I had a small wager on Portugal, against the spread – I wanted them to win by at least 2 goals.

            Similarly, I’m hoping for a draw (or Swiss win) from Chile / Switz.

            1. How much did that get you? 10 cents?

  9. The White House wants to bring back sexy.

    Would have been a better headline.

  10. Commenters on his YouTube page are surprised that he hasn’t been seriously approached by the production arm of a special effects company yet

    TFH, why don’t you stop by for a beer tomorrow?

  11. Even if you don’t buy one, you’re still going to be paying for it.

    Early buyers of the Chevrolet Volt electric car could receive a free home-charging station through a U.S. Department of Energy program, General Motors said.

    It’s all being paid for through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

    That’s right, taxpayer subsidies to purchase Government Motors autos and only Government Motors autos.

    Don’t ya just love a shell game?

    1. And don’t forget all of the green jobs that will be created making those charging stations.

      “The money has to come from somewhere” seems to me like a pretty simple proposition. Why is it so difficult for the “reality based community” to grasp?

      1. Whatever, John. Volt drivers need those 240-volt charging stations. Do you really expect them to wait all night to drive 40 miles instead of a mere 4 hours?

        Seriously, you could walk 40 miles faster than an all night charge on puny 120.

        1. Yeah they need it. And if it made sense economically to own a Volt, the government wouldn’t have to buy the charging station for them. The cost of the charging station is part of the cost of making the car practical. Again, that money has to come from somewhere.

          1. My favorite part of the Volt is the on-board gasoline generator.

            “But don’t worry: this horseless carriage has an on-board horse for emergencies.”

            1. We’ll be nearing peak lithium soon!

              1. Afghanistan has enormous supplies of lithium. I liked it better when we invaded countries for oil. It was cheaper.

                1. Actually, so do Canada, Chile, and a couple other countries where the mines aren’t going to come under fire on a daily basis.

            2. My favorite part of the Volt is the on-board gasoline generator.

              That’s what I really don’t get about the home charging stations.

              “You have one already. It’s called the FUCKING GAS ENGINE.”

              1. But if they ever get Nuke plants built, we’ll actually eliminate (some) CO2 consumption.

            3. To be fair, the engine runs more efficiently as a generator than as a prime mover.

              Is it enough to make up for all the loses….fuck if I know, I aint gettin paid to do all that math. Unless the checks have been getting lost in the mail….

      2. More to the point, what exactly is providing the energy source for that “free” (God, I wanna puke) charging station.

        “The money has to come from somewhere” seems to me like a pretty simple proposition. Why is it so difficult for the “reality based community” to grasp?

        John, the short answer, which you already know, is “IT’S NOT THEIR MONEY!”

        1. To quote the loathsome idiot Dan Tard: “Once you pay your taxes, it’s the government’s money.”

          1. mind if I use that?

          2. To quote the loathsome idiot Dan Tard: “Once you pay your taxes, it’s the government’s money.”

            THAT is what I kept telling the judge. One I stick’em up, the money is mine!

    2. I will totally buy one of these and get the credit.

      I’m also looking at doing some solar generation on my roof because my utility is required to buy the energy from me at absurdly high rates and then pass that cost on to all other ratepayers.

      I only regret that I didn’t get any of those free dishwashers they were giving out.

      BAHAHAHAHAHAHA! [Counts stolen lucre.] In Obama’s America, being a frickin’ pirate is EASY.

      1. Why not. If I owned my own house I would do the same. Just another way to screw non home owners I guess.

      2. Here in Texas, I could have replaced my air conditioning system with a $4000 really efficient system for about $1000 after subsidies. Those subsidies were taken in about 4 hours. One week later, I had to spend $500 repairing my old system.

    3. I don’t have a problem with that.

  12. The United States has been leading a chorus of countries urging China to let its currency fluctuate.

    Hey, country in the back! Quit singing “Fructuate!”

  13. ? Hundreds evacuate their homes north of Flagstaff as wildfires approach.

    [channelling Chad]

    SEE? SEE? UNINHABITABLE!!!!!!!!!

    AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH!!

  14. Hugo Chavez Spearheads Raids as Food Prices Skyrocket

    Mountains of rotting food found at a government warehouse, soaring prices and soldiers raiding wholesalers accused of hoarding: Food supply is the latest battle in President Hugo Chavez’s socialist revolution.

    Venezuelan army soldiers swept through the working class, pro-Chavez neighborhood of Catia in Caracas last week, seizing 120 tons of rice along with coffee and powdered milk that officials said was to be sold above regulated prices.

    “The battle for food is a matter of national security,” said a red-shirted official from the Food Ministry, resting his arm on a pallet laden with bags of coffee.

    It is also the latest issue to divide the Latin American country where Chavez has nationalized a wide swathe of the economy, he says to reverse years of exploitation of the poor.

    Chavez supporters are grateful for a network of cheap state-run supermarkets and they say the raids will slow massive inflation.

    Critics accuse him of steering the country toward a communist dictatorship and say he is destroying the private sector.

    They point to 80,000 tons of rotting food found in warehouses belonging to the government as evidence the state is a poor and corrupt administrator.

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/37786852

    1. You fucking racist right-wingers need to stop picking on Chavez! Go suck Ron Paul’s cock!

  15. Speaking of Krugman, that bastard will just not quit. I mean, debt’s only at 90% of GDP, Paul…what else does this guy want?

    1. He would rather see us go bankrupt than admit that maybe he has a few things wrong. He will never quit. His ego is far more important than anything else.

    2. Advocating the VAT tax again, Krugman?

      He makes me sick to my ass.

    3. He is seriously invested in a version of history where the Great Depression lasted as long as it did because FDR failed to spend enough.

      To support that version of history, it’s necessary for him to continue to advocate extreme deficit spending NOW, “until the jobs picture improves”.

      He’s worried about the data set here, because if we double-dip on recession here, or have a “lost decade” like Japan, that makes the Keynesian record on recovering from economic declines start to look pretty bad.

      1. Start to look pretty bad? They guys have been denying history for decades. Nothing that happens this decade is going to change that. No matter what we do, Krugman and his ilk will be claiming that everything would have been okay if we had just spent more.

        1. There’s a small part of me that feels sorry for old Alfred E., because pretty much the entire planet has tuned the likes of him and Obama out. He’s been reduced to the nutty street preacher everyone goes out of their way to avoid, just a little better paid.

        2. I’m with John. They’ve got a mindset that allows them to believe that every downturn is due to the evils of capitalism, and if we had only had more government spending everything would have been OK. It is kind of like the “no true Scotsman” argument. No matter what happens after spending a couple of trillion dollars last year, the answer will be “stimulus spending works!” And X result proves it. Economy goes up – yep, it worked! Economy goes down – see, we told you we needed more stimulus! It is really brilliant (if your audience is too dumb to pick up on such a simple fallacy).

      2. The sad thing is, he’s the one ushering in our lost decade.

        1. We’re nearly a quarter of the way there already.

    4. Spend now, while the economy remains depressed; save later, once it has recovered. How hard is that to understand?

      OK then, Paul, buy my art … please.

      1. Yeah, please buy his art, Paul! I’ve been crashing on the couch and we’re out of PBR; I’ve been spending my food stamps on my hipster doofus poseur lifestyle!

      2. Did Krugman call for spending less during the Clinton administration?

  16. Listen to the sun. It’s pretty neat.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sci…..tists.html

  17. http://justoneminute.typepad.c…..order.html

    Interesting breakdown on crime in Arizona. I think Reason was touting the NYT story last week. The problem is that, while crime in the cities has gone down, crime in the rural areas, where the border actually is, has gone up significantly. Perhaps those Arizonans should believe their lying eyes rather than the New York Times and Reason.

    1. Dude, this is moronic.

      If illegal immigrants are crossing the border and then remain standing right next to it, fuck it, who needs to fix this problem?

      1. It is not moronic at all. What it is telling you is that the crime associated with immigration is at the border, where all the smuggling and such is going on.

        In a way, it actually supports the Reason get the US out of North America position because if people could just walk across, we wouldn’t have the crime associated with people having to be smuggled across.

        But to make that point would require Reason to actually listen to the people out there rather than piss on them and call them all racists. And what is the fun in that?

        1. There are more illegal immigrants in Arizona’s cities than in the nation as a whole.

          Crime declined faster in Arizona’s cities than in the nation as a whole.

          There is pretty much no additional analysis you can do that gets rid of that data point.

          Attempting to slice out small sections of Arizona to claim “Here’s where all the illegal immigrant crime is!” is ridiculous. It requires us to believe that illegal immigrants are crossing the border and then standing still right next to the border, waiting to commit crimes.

          In addition, no data is provided at this link showing relative crime rate declines for rural and urban areas for the nation as a whole. For all we know, rural area crime rates have diverged from urban and suburban crime rates everywhere over the time frame covered. Given the distribution of meth-related crime nationwide, that wouldn’t surprise me.

          1. No, it just requires us to believe that the smuggling creates crime. Further, it could well be that the people crossing the border commit crimes on their way to support themselves and then quit when they get to a city and find a job. It is a lot easier to commit and get away with a crime in a rural area you are just passing through than a city with a big police force.

            Contrary to what Reason believes, they don’t cross the border throwing roses and riding unicorns. People are generally smuggled across the border by criminals. And gee, perhaps those criminals commit other crimes.

            Reason will never admit that there is any downside to immigration. In fact, I really think Reason should just advocate the forced relocation of all legal residents of the US. That way we could have an entire country of recent immigrants. What could be better?

            1. John, what is your suggestion? Because all I ever see from your side is that we have to virtually shut down the borders before you’ll consider the reforms necessary to cut down on these crimes.

              1. I think we should enforce or borders and have some idea who is coming into the country. And I think the people who live here ought to have the final say via their government on who comes here.

                You assume I am anti-immigration. I am not at all. I am anti illegal immigration. And I also think other people besides those who can walk over the border ought to have a chance to come here to.

                1. How many illegal immigrants do we have to cut it down to before you’ll support much-needed reform? That’s the key answer.

                  As far as I am concerned, the fence failed, doubling or even tripling border agents has and will continue to fail…dumping money will fail…so let’s admit that we have managed the border as well as we can and take legislative steps to solving the problem, which is liberalization of the border and allowing seasonal laborers to travel to-and-from using an employer sponsorship program.

                2. Actually, John’s arguments mirror the illegal drug trade discussion. Simply remove “illegal” from the equation and you remove the criminal element. Bush tried to address this with a guest worker program… wow, that thing went over like a lead balloon. Strange, you’d think the left would be all for such a thing. I guess they really aren’t interested in worker’s rights or ending exploitation of illegals. Pretty much it seems that the armchair analysis is right. The left want’s more democrat party voters and government dependents and the right doesn’t. That’s the beginning and ending of the controversy at the top level. Those plebes out there may have racist reasons, or bleeding heart reasons, or justice reasons… but they don’t drive the actions at the top at all.

                  1. Bush’s reforms were largely rejected by the right.

    2. There are more rural areas than just around the border.

      There is also absolutely no proof for drawing any shred of “causation” when it comes to illegal immigration.

      1. True, correlation does not equal causation. But, something is causing the rise in crime in non-metropolitan areas to go up. Maybe it is something else. The people who live there seem to think it is immigration. If NYT or Reason did their jobs, they would look into that rather than cherry picking the major city statistics. But, as a said above, easier to write off anyone who doesn’t agree with them as a racist, than actually do some thinking and reporting.

        1. Why 2008? Certainly the numbers are available for 2009, and this post was written this week. Where are the 2009 numbers?

          Also, are these violent crime arrests, reported offenses, or convictions?

          “It’s a mat…and it has all of these conclusions…that you can jump to…”

          1. All good questions. My point is that there seems to be more to what is going on in Arizona than the fairy tale that Reason and NYT write.

            1. Perhaps. From the 2009 numbers I pulled, the MSAs had yet another dramatic decline in violent crime, and if I were a betting man, I would bet that cities, not rural counties, is where most illegals are hiding.

              And, like increased autism rates, it is entirely possible that increased vigilance, rather than anything nefarious like the Brown Hordes or vaccines are contributing – could just be better detection.

            2. John – even assuming what they claim is true about rural crime: if the immigrants were allowed to come across legally, would this problem exist?

              1. It might. As I said above, it might actually support the Reason position of ending US sovereignty and letting anyone in.

                1. John, if I wanted to fly people in from Mexico to work on my private mansion’s grounds, on what moral principle do you advocate preventing me from doing so?

                  And, per the usual, “sovereignty” advocates say dick-all about Canada, which is a much longer, much more undefended and more porous border.

                  1. If millions of Canadians were coming across the border they would. You don’t like the nation state and would like to see the US and every other country cease to exist. Good for you. But be honest about it and understand some people look at it differently.

                    And of course neither Canada or Mexico are going to get rid of their borders anytime soon. If you went down to pursue your legal right to work anywhere in Mexico, you would wind up in prison.

                    1. They’re just lines on a map John, which is why TAO was so outraged by Israel stopping that aid flotilla seeking a voluntary transfer of goods between parties…

                    2. which is why TAO was so outraged by Israel stopping that aid flotilla seeking a voluntary transfer of goods between parties…

                      Desperation is a stinky cologne, MNG. Please don’t bore me today, little-minded one.

                    3. Good one. That one actually made me laugh. And it is true. Everyone but the US gets to have sovereignty.

                    4. If you went down to pursue your legal right to work anywhere in Mexico, you would wind up in prison.

                      No relevance whatsoever.

                      You don’t like the nation state and would like to see the US and every other country cease to exist.

                      Not really, but also irrelevant. That has no bearing on this.

                    5. If you can’t enforce your borders, you are not a sovereign.

                    6. Enforcing your borders against an armed invasion is a country-mile of difference between preventing people from coming here to work.

                      I’m anti-illegal-immigration too, John…so let’s make it legal.

                    7. John – just FYI, I don’t support open borders. I do think we ought to let in pretty much anyone who wants to come here for legal purposes, and I think our current system makes it easier for terrorists and criminals to sneak in – because they have the cover of thousands of innocent people.

                    8. Every country has to have some system for who gets in and out of the country. We have one too.

                      If you want people fly people in to work on your house I can be concerned about what they do in my country after they finish the job…

                    9. Every country has to have some system for who gets in and out of the country. We have one too.

                      yes, and it sucks. so are we going to wait until this sucky system somehow magically fixes itself before we fix it?

                      If you want people fly people in to work on your house I can be concerned about what they do in my country after they finish the job…

                      Not unless they perform some demonstrable harm against you.

                    10. You mean I can only be concerned after they perform some demonstrable harm? There is no concern for potential harm in your universe?

                    11. Even so, you cannot prove that an immigrant has any more potential harm in him than your next-door neighbor, but I do not hear you demanding all kinds of information about him.

                    12. I don’t think it’s irrational to think that a massive influx of people from a 3rd World crime ridden kleptocracy will be more likely to negatively impact my environment. And that’s not even considering the potential harm to things like cultural capital…

                    13. people from a 3rd World crime ridden kleptocracy will be more likely to negatively impact my environment.

                      Californians aren’t allowed to move to another state if they want?

                    14. Californians aren’t allowed to move to another state if they want?

                      Think hard about that one Saccharin Man. Do you really want a bunch of CA Moonbeams in KY spreading their Progressive religion as well as their misery? Or from Detroit, for that matter?

                    15. A blue state that loves welfare at least makes sense. We’re a red state that loves welfare. Maybe we would at least get medical marijuana… Although, were could I buy it?

                    16. The US government isn’t allowed to have preferences in the area of “cultural capital”.

                    17. “Gosh darnit! That abandoned Fazoli’s has become a Messican restaurant! What’s happening to this country?!?”

                    18. Why not? Isn’t the weird enshrined value of “home ownership = good” promoting cultural capital?

                    19. Insofar as it relates to immigration and naturalization, yes, actually it is allowed to have such preferences, and has acted on those preferences since the beginning.

                    20. “And of course neither Canada or Mexico are going to get rid of their borders anytime soon. If you went down to pursue your legal right to work anywhere in Mexico, you would wind up in prison.”

                      Yes, and most industrialized nations have national healthcare… what’s your point?

      2. I would also point out that NYT and Reason do nothing but point at raw statistics. There is nothing to say that crime in the Metro areas wouldn’t have gone down even more had there been less or no immigration. The raw statistic doesn’t tell you anything. But, when it supports their position, Reason thinks it does. When they don’t, Reason miraculously discovers that correlation doesn’t equal causation.

        1. The raw statistic doesn’t tell you anything.

          The raw statistic tells you that the crime rate in cities that experienced high amounts of illegal immigration went down.

          You can argue that it might have gone down even further without any immigration, and that would be a valid point to raise. But no matter what, as long as the crime rate is dropping, no resident of those areas can blame illegals for an increase in crime. If there’s no increase in crime, there’s no increase in crime, and assigning blame for an increase in crime that doesn’t exist is an automatic non-sequitur.

          1. the people who live on the border in the rural areas can. Their crime rate has gone up. There is more to Arizona than Phoenix. And maybe those people are not just racist yahoos and have a point. But Reason will never admit that they are anything but evil racists.

            1. And maybe they don’t have a point at all. You have latched onto this lame post, which is full of holes, both logical and data-related, just to pound on reason for what is still the most sound point.

              1. Pointing to the crime rates in metropolitan areas while ignoring the crime on the actual border is not a sound point. You guys will just never admit there could be any downside whatsoever to immigration. It is not that you think the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. It is that you think there could never be a disadvantage.

  18. “But don’t worry: this horseless carriage has an on-board horse for emergencies.”

    Most excellent!

  19. The Congressional Budget Office, in its analysis of President Obama’s budget proposals, predicts that economic recovery will reduce the annual budget deficit from about 10 percent of G.D.P. this year to about 4 percent of G.D.P. in 2014.

    And I just know Hollywood will buy my next screenplay; I see no reason why I shouldn’t just order a new Maybach now.

  20. Federer dropped first 2 sets in 1st round of Wimbledon

    1. The worst part of every Federer match is when they cut away to his huge beard in the audience.

      1. Federer is straight.

        He just has odd Swiss tastes.

        I bet his wife is considered hot in Switzerland. Those weirdos.

        Didn’t she just have twins? He’s working really hard on maintaining the charade.

        Speaking of Switzerland:

        Whenever someone says that we need English-only rules in the US because multilanguage countries don’t work, I always jump up to agree. Look at that shithole Switzerland! That’s where multilingualism gets you!

        1. Of course for every Switzerland there are like five Belgiums and Yugoslavias. You are right, it can happen, if you are a small isolated country in the Alps.

          1. Belgium! Another shithole!

            1. It has pretty much ceased to exist as a country.

              http://www.independent.co.uk/n…..99347.html

              The Walloons and the Flemish hate each other. It is the last country you would want to point to as an example of a multi lingual society. American cosmos are so fucking stupid they think just because the place makes good beer it is some kind political example.

              1. When was the last time there was any Flemish – Walloon political violence, John?

                And if it peacefully splits into two countries – um, so what?

                1. Well, a hundred years from now when the US peacefully splits off the Southwest and the people who live there and don’t want to split, that will be a big so what. And of course none of those guys are would ever pick up a gun or anything.

                  You guys act like nothing bad could ever happen by letting huge numbers of people who don’t speak the common language and all come from basically the same place come across the border.

        2. Mika is the Ann Veal of the tennis world.

    2. Sounds like his mind is in South Africa.

      1. When Federer pulls a Borg (please, please, please), maybe he’ll have a 2nd career in soccer like Jordan and baseball.

        1. You got something against Rog? In the absence of any truly great American player, he’s likable enough.

          1. I find him boring. Tennis robot programmed to occasionally exhibit hoo-mon emotions. I like players fueled by barely suppressed rage.

            1. I guess you hated Sampras, then.

              1. Yup. Roddick and Nadal on the men’s side. I’d like Murray more if some coach would beat the petulance out of him.

                Tennis drinking game: Take a shot every time some says the word “Fitness.”

                1. I despise Rafa. He is a showboating little douchebag.

                  Screw you and your clay-court game, Rafa!

                  And Roddick – good lord. I’d say that Roddick has million-dollar body and a ten-cent head, but that would overprice his head. That guy is the singularity of headcase choking suckery. He chokes so badly that if he fought France in a land war he would lose.

                  1. All tennis past a certain level is based on choking. Very few matches are determined totally on skill.

                    Hell, I often wonder if there is anything to the game at all on the women’s side except choking.

                    1. anything to the game at all on the women’s side except choking

                      Choking or gagging?

                  2. Not chocking, so much as being a complete dick on court, trying to bully the little guy. And Roddick’s gotten away with it largely because the main ESPN commentator, Pat McEnroe, was his Davis Cup captain.

                    That, and I think part of the reason ESPN have never really liked Federer is because he took what was supposed to be Roddick’s success.

            2. When they asked Roddick about the US game, he sounded like there was some suppressed rage.

              1. Roddick will have a fine 2nd career as a tennis commentator.

                When asked a few years ago about his rivalry with Federer: “I think I’d have to win a match for it to be a rivalry.”

    3. Federer has bounced back and is now up 2 games to none in the 5th set.

    1. I keep saying liberals are just running from the Repo man. None of their policies work. And all of them end when the country finally can’t borrow another dollar.

      1. That doesn’t apply to just liberals. It’s going to be hard to keep multiple wars and CIA assassination programs going when the bank runs out, so time’s running out for you guys too.

        1. Bullets are cheap Tulpa. Very cheap. And bombs are per capita even cheaper. That just means that we can’t be so careful and avoid civilian casualties as much. Fortunately for you, we will always have the money to defend ourselves, even if you don’t appreciate the service.

          1. Amazing that we’ve poured hundreds of billions of dollars into the non-war wars in IRQ and AFG over the past decade, then. I think there may be more expense required to wage war than paying for bullets and bombs, but hey I’m not a military guy, maybe you can explain where the money gets spent. I seriously doubt it’s due to concern over civilian casualties.

            Oh, and I certainly appreciate the armed services’ defense of our nation in general and me in particular. I just don’t appreciate whatever the fuck it is they’re supposed to be doing in IRQ and AFG at this point. Obviously, I’m not disparaging the individuals in the military, as they don’t get to choose their mission, they follow orders from the civilian command (ie, idiot politicians).

            1. I said about four years ago when you people were having vapors over the Iraq war, that as soon as Iraq died down you would move on to Afghanistan and bitch about that. I was told no. That Afghanistan was a good war that Iraq distracted us from.

              Now here we are and sure enough I was right. We invaded Afghanistan because they supported and harbored a group that attacked us. And if we leave tomorrow, the Taliban, the same people who harbored Bin Ladin would take back over. That is a war waged in self defense. Yet, you people still object, because you would object to anything we do to defend ourselves.

        2. CIA assassination programs are actually surprisingly cheap, Tulpa. We can probably keep those going even if the Chinese quit loaning us money.

    2. The catalyst was last week’s lackluster Oval Office address, but the real complaints run deeper. Many liberals Most Americans look at this White House and see a presidency adrift ? unable to respond effectively to the crisis in the gulf, incapable of rallying the country to great tasks unfunded mandates like the quest for clean energy The Fountain of Youth, and unwilling to do what it takes to jump-start keep its damn hands out of our pocketbooks and the economy.

      FTFY Ross.

      PS What Saccharin Man said.

      1. Seriously, the FIFY meme becomes pretty unfunny when there are more than two strikethroughs involved. To the extent that it was ever funny to begin with.

        1. It’s only unfunny when the FTFY job is poorly done.

          The above GM FTFY was fine.

          1. Well there’s no accounting for taste, but those things are serious eyesores in my opinion. Maybe I’m alone in that opinion.

    3. That is a weak beard. Dude, if the hormones are not there, just shave and admit the truth.

  21. So, after losing 7-0, will the North Korean players be executed as soon as they get off the plane, or will they just be sent to starve in the camps?

    1. Bullets are expensive, dude.

      1. They can just charge the families for the bullets like the Chinese…

        1. How would they determine the true value of a bullet in a command economy?

          Silly Commies.

      2. As are ginormous lepus, Saccharin Man.

        …or will they just be sent to starve in the camps?

        The camps are different from the the rest of N. Korea how, exactly?

    2. Maybe the plane will be shot out of the sky. Would be better than getting the ol’ “Hans Blix”.

  22. “On June 18, 2010, Arizona Republican Senator Jon Kyl told the audience at a North Tempe Tea Party town hall meeting that during a private, one-on-one meeting with President Obama in the Oval Office, the President told him, regarding securing the southern border with Mexico, ‘The problem is . . . if we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform.’ [Audible gasps were heard throughout the audience.] Sen. Kyl continued, ‘In other words, they’re holding it hostage. They don’t want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with comprehensive immigration reform.’ Sen. Kyl also said he reminded President Obama that the President and the Congress has an obligation, a duty, to secure the border.”

    http://www.redstate.com/coldwa…..on-reform/

    1. That’s a two-way street – Republicans are holding immigration reform hostage using ugly Know-Nothingisms until we acheieve the impossible and stop illegal immigration entirely.

      1. Not equivalent at all. Refusing to pass a law until existing laws are enforced is not the same as refusing to enforce the law until it gets changed in a way you’d like.

        1. Except that “securing the border” to Republican (and most middle-of-the-road nonthinking plebes) is not possible. What about that is so hard to comprehend?

          1. Perhaps they should try to enforce the law before declaring it impossible. Also, assuming Kyl is being truthful, Obama thinks it is possible, but doesn’t want to try because he wants the GOP to cooperate with re-writing the laws.

            P.S.: Your newfound habit of insulting anyone who disagrees with you, calling them obtuse or lacking in comprehension ability at the drop of a hat, only serves to make you look like an ass. It’s one thing to get heated after a long back and forth argument. But after one post?

            1. It isn’t “one post”. It’s the same goddamned argument over and over again. Also, maybe you noticed the “Angry” part? I get pissed because people refuse to think, and it’s a stubborn and perpetual habit with many posters…you included.

              Perhaps they should try to enforce the law before declaring it impossible.

              What does that mean? What does that look like? How do you define a law as “successfully enforced”? Is it a 50% reduction in illegal immigration? 10%? 2?

              This is what kills me: immigrant hawks consistently refuse to define their terms and goals. All I ever hear is “enforce the border!” and “I’m not anti-immigration, I’m anti-illegal-immigration!” (as if there is a farthing of difference). Like SugarFree said below, it is a constant call for a higher dam…heaven forbid we actually open the thing.

              1. Seriously, to finish ranting: how often have you talked to people about immigration? Because it is one of the most pernicious and racially-tinged topics with an astonishing number of people. You know how many people want to look like the Iron Curtain, with walls and troops and wire and mines? It’s a fucking scary amount, which is why this issue, more than others, has me wound so tightly: people are willing to turn this into Prison America over some day laborers they cannot even demonstrate have done significant harm based on bogus fucking crime statistics and scary stories about uninsured drivers (ignoring, of course, the fact that the law makes them have to be uninsured in the first place).

                1. And a lot of Obama opposition comes from people who dislike him for racial reasons. That doesn’t justify the leftist habit of name-calling toward Obama opponents.

              2. Imagine the questions you’re asking being asked about other laws, ones that libertarians support. “How do we define successful enforcement of the law requiring stopping at a stop sign? 50% enforcement? 10% enforcement?…” Your argument would, in that case, state that we shouldn’t enforce traffic statutes either because we don’t know what enforcement is.

                1. Except illegal immigration is, by and large, a victimless crime, meaning that there is no justice to be had on the other side of the scale. Because there is no countervailing sense of justice, I get to ask you what the numbers are that are considered “enforcement”. Especially because conservatives’ constrant refrain is “enforce the laws we have…then we’ll talk!” Well, that frankly means no illegal immigrants at all, and that’s a deliberately outlandish and impossible-to-achieve standard.

                  So…again…what does enforcement look like?

                  Also, with your stop-sign analogy, if we needed stop-sign reform, but your side said “we can’t do that until we have complete stop-sign enforcement”, that would be bullshit.

                  1. “Except illegal immigration is, by and large, a victimless crime”

                    Totally. Fucking Stupid.

                    Illegals — due to their status — are frequently the targets of crime. THEY are the victims. They are robbed of their paychecks. They are raped and extorted. They are victims of financial scams. They are forced into prostitution. They are forced to work for sub-standard wages in dangerous jobs. If they lose a hand on a metal press, they receive no worker’s compensation. They are just shit out of luck.

                    Victimless crime my ass.

                    1. Wow, it’s a wonder they’d even consider coming to the US…

          2. should say “standards” after “plebes)”

    2. “The dam’s spilling over! We have to open the gates to relieve the pressure!”

      “Fuck that, let’s just build the dam higher!”

      1. “And build the danged fence!”

  23. Is Obama’s #1 wartime consigliere Rahm “Dead Fish” Emanuel being set up to get whacked after the coming midterm election beatdown? The Families of Washington may be giving him the Kiss of Death.

  24. Swiss keeper forced to make a double save early. Chile is really pressing.

    1. Blaise Nkufo is as Swiss as Heidi

      1. At least they tried by naming him “Blaise”.

    2. Swiss player gets the Red for a dangerous tackle.

      1. As a neutral observer, it was a garbage call. A yellow at best. This ref is way too happy with the colors.

    3. Swiss nearly scored a few minutes ago.

    4. Kyle Martino thinks the red was bogus. Sounds like an acting job.

    5. Chile doesn’t need to cheat like this. They’re a very attacking side.

    6. Whoa. Frei subbed out already? Schweiz is really banking on being able to keep Chile out with 10 men.

    7. Chile really pressing in stoppage time. Can the Swiss hang on?

      1. Yes. 0-0 at the half.

    8. Barnetta gets a yellow early in the 2nd half for the Swiss.

      The resulting free kick leads to Alexis Sanchez knocking one in. The Swiss are in trouble.

      1. no goal, 3 Chileans offside

      2. Never mind! Disallowed for offside!

    9. Oh, my! Sanchez in one-on-one vs. the keeper, but Benaglio saves!

    10. 2 more yellows.

      And more still. Some minor argy-bargy is causing the referee to get pissy.

  25. This is what I was reminded of by the huffing and puffing about the “massive crime wave” in rural Arizona:

    And the meanest, ugliest, nastiest one, the meanest
    father raper of them all, was coming over to me and he was mean ‘n’ ugly
    ‘n’ nasty ‘n’ horrible and all kind of things and he sat down next to me
    and said, “Kid, whad’ya get?” I said, “I didn’t get nothing, I had to pay
    $50 and pick up the garbage.” He said, “What were you arrested for, kid?”
    And I said, “Littering.”

    1. “And then they all moved away from me on the ‘group W’ bench… until I said, ‘and creating a nuisance’..”

  26. How would they determine the true value of a bullet in a command economy?

    You check the London Market price in the back of the Wall Street Journal.
    Silly Sugarfree.

    1. If you like the Wall Street Journal so much why don’t you just marry it.

  27. “The latest Al Qaeda propaganda tape highlights the president’s fading popularity, Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts, and Obama’s Islamic-sounding name.”

    There’s a reason the Tea Party is called the American Taliban.

    1. Shut up, Dan. You’re not fooling anyone.

    2. Seriously. That’s just sad.

  28. Gadahn’s Reason magazine’s statement was notable for its mocking tone, in which he it described Obama as “a devious, evasive and serpentine American president with a Muslim name,” and seemed to delight in his setbacks …

    In its statements since his election, al-Qaida Reason magazine has taken pains to show the continuity between Obama’s foreign policy and that of his predecessor.

    OMG! Reason magazine is an Al-Qaeda sleeper cell!

  29. mysteries of the Florida Tea Party.

    I saw a couple of articles about this yesterday; schemes within plots within gambits…

    Of course, this requires a level of intelligence which fails (pitifully) the plausibility test.

    1. Anybody who espouses conspiracy theories on the part of the GOP has clearly never been to a state convention.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.