Reason Morning Links: Dutch Leave Afghanistan, Home Ownership at 50-Year Low, Drinking at 25-Year High


NEXT: Have Faith! ObamaCare Will Definitely Work...Eventually

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. U.S. has plan to attack Iran if it’s necessary to prevent the country from acquiring nuclear weapons

    So, they have a plan! Well, shit, nothing could go wrong with that…

    1. Remember we had to vote for Obama because McCain was going to get us into a bunch of wars.

      1. Yeah, he was gonna bomb, bomb, bomb – bomb, bomb Iran.

        1. Hmmm, I hear Slade, not Beach Boys.

          See a nuclear bomb
          Killing everyone
          bomb bomb Iran

    2. We have a plan, too!

      1. Pay no attention to those hostages in Iran.…..index.html

        1. Alright already! Here’s a piece back.

      2. You aren’t calling it a “solution”?

        1. HEY!! Too soon for Godwinning.

    3. U.S. has plan to attack the insurance industry if it’s necessary to prevent them from offering private health insurance.

      1. Are you serious?

        1. Drone missile strikes in concert with special forces ops.

    4. In fairness, we have a plan to attack just about everyone for one reason or another. Surgical strikes on Canada if they try to stop the flow of comedians to the entertainment biz; firebombing Britain if they try to send us any pub food, etc.

      1. Mmmmm… Scotch Eggs.

      2. There are plans that go into effect when there’s been a coup on the island of Fernando Poo.

    5. I think the US has a plan to attack every country. I’m starting to think the US is on that list as well.

      1. Is that plan green-lighted?

        1. It’s shovel-ready.

      2. Why, yes, yes, it is on that list.

  2. Surprise! Corrupt, racist House caucus plays the race card!

    1. They’re going with the Vast White Wing Conspiracy…gee, didn’t see that coming.

    2. “Those Tea Party people that showed up at the health care debate, they will not hesitate for one moment to racialize something,” said Mr. Clyburn, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. “They did, and they will.”

      Pot – Kettle … ooooooh Racist!

      1. The irony. It hurts so good.

        1. Cast irony, as it were.

          1. Somebody has a case of the Pundays.

            1. Stop, please. It’s too early, and I haven’t had my dru… um, coffee yet.

      2. Pot – Kettle … ooooooh Racist!

        Except in this case the kettle is silver with some black specks on it.

    3. I saw that jackass Sharpton on CNN this morning talking about this.

      Not once – not ONCE – did he talk about the question of whether Rangel and Waters did what it is alleged they did.

      Not once.

      Because that’s not relevant, apparently.

      1. Did any of the newsbots bother to ask?

          1. It would inconveniently contradict their yearlong narrative that all blacks are heroic and all whites are angry racists.

      2. Because that’s not relevant, apparently.

        Not if they were white. Duh…

    4. This is what happens when you deregulate voting.

  3. So much for Obama being more non-interventionist. Tony? Joe?

    1. If Iran gets nukes it will finally reveal the UN to be the worthless organization it is. No Democratic President is going to let that happen. I bet he bombs Iran.

      1. That hasn’t been revealed already?

      2. 8-( How doe you envisage the Israelis in these festivities?

      3. Actually the UN folded and ran from Iraq after the first car bomb. Useless, yes, stupid? Not as much as others.

    2. He has a plan to perhaps attack Iran. That’s not quite the same as, well, actually attacking…

      1. It is a posture that is publicly announced for the intended effect. President Ahmafreekinnutjob will equate it to an actual attack.

      2. Under international law, the threat of attack is justification for a preemptive strike against the threatener. If the tables were turned and it was Iran claiming to be planning an attack against the United States, every peace-loving Democrat would support Obama in making a preemptive strike.

        Yes, we should have plans in place to attack any country just in case the need arises. But for God’s sake, you don’t go around talking about them! What the Obama administration and their military stooges think this is going to accomplish is beyond me.

        1. Under international law, the threat of attack is justification for a preemptive strike against the threatener.

          It’s the Bush doctrine, right?

  4. On the Rangel/Waters ethics trials, how long before Democrats and their MSNBC cheerleaders claim that they inherited corrupt Democrats from George Bush?

    1. They must have already, we just missed it.

    2. “Inheriting” blacks? That has to be racist.

      1. Stop being so anti-property rights. This is a Libertarian board.

        1. I dunked over the President and said, “I own you!” Big mistake.

          1. It is bad to agitate the mongrels.

  5. U.S. drinking rate highest since 1985.

    Mostly due to Virginia Postrel’s departure from reason.

  6. I guess there is a fetish for everything:

    Ho, ho Hodes! Ain’t no taint too big?

  7. What about this burn a Koran day stuff? Sounds like a bad idea.

    1. You need carbon credits to offset it.

    2. What you talkin’ ’bout, Suki?

      1. Something they were talking about on the radio earlier. Terry Jones runs the Church sponsoring it? Saw it in facebook recently too. Don’t know much about it.

        1. Suki’s developing a car that runs on burned Korans. It gets 26 fatwahs to the Jihad.

        2. I saw this somewhere. It’s the Church of Retarded Rednecks (or something like tha) in Gainesville, FL. They have been agitating against muslims for a few years now. First banners, then t-shirts, now this. If you do a search you can find news articles about some of the previous hilarity.

          1. That would make sense. You can’t swing a dead cat without hitting a differently-abled redneck in Gainesville.

    3. Why would we want to burn Koreans?

      1. Isn’t that how we get Korean BBQ?

        1. Stay away from the long pork.

    1. I don’t know if the $81,000 figure is accurate for the true price of the Volt (from the first link), but it certainly doesn’t compare favorably to the Tesla Model S sedan, which according to Wikipedia, is “anticipated to begin production for the 2012 model year with a base price of US$57,400”.

      1. (Not factoring in subsidies, the base price of the Volt is $41,000).

        1. So the future of GM is being bet on customers prefering to buy Volt over say a BMW Z4 for the same price?

          1. Are those my only choices? I think I’ll buy a really tricked out bicycle instead (with a banana seat and baseball cards in the spokes).

    2. “So the future of General Motors (and the $50 billion taxpayer investment in it) now depends on a vehicle that costs $41,000 but offers the performance and interior space of a $15,000 economy car.”

      Any predictions as to which entity will be the primary purchaser of this fleet?

      1. Umm, … China?

          1. Umm, … Chrysler?

      2. There are lots of very important people who will happily pay $41,000 for a $15,000 economy car that takes two hours to gas up.

        And they will be happy to send a convoy of armored humvee’s to bring other very important people to their estate so they can show it off.

        Hell, if they have a slow weekend they may even try to drive it for a laugh.

        1. They have important people at GSA?

      3. Hard to say…although it would be natural to expect that the government will piss away taxpayer dollars to buy them, it’s hard to imagine our imperial elites actually stooping to driving them. They’ll try to think of some way to foist them on us…maybe a big fat gasoline tax, taxes on internal combustion engined vehicles, etc.

        1. They will mandate that Americans either buy a volt or pay a fine. There is a precedent.

          1. If the American government would just give free cars to everyone, car ownership levels would improve.

          2. buy a volt or pay a fine

            It has been decreed (this week) that it’s not a fine, but a tax.

        2. I support buying Volts for police:
          Volts will make great cop cars, they catch you on radar speeding, they flip on the lights and siren, step on the “gas” and the wolt rolls to a gentle stop 10 feet away.

          1. My father was a parole officer and as part of his job he got a state car to drive around in.

            I remember the day back in the 70’s that he brought in his old car (a plymouth fury) in to be replaced by a new one. The new one was a Chevy Chevette.

            Within a month the gear shift knob fell off and he had to use a pen to shift the car.

          2. Electric vehicles actually have better acceleration, but slower top speeds.

      4. I’m guessing the state of California will pass a law mandating all police cruisers be electric by 2014 or whatever. So GM can pay back its bailout money with federal bailout money that California will get when it goes bankrupt.

        1. Not cop cars. They have to go fast. Every other governmental entity, probably.

          1. Electric ambulance and Obamacare would have some wonderful synergistic effect for each other.

          2. Oooh! Us! Us!

    3. When the President walks into that factory that’s building the Chevy Volt, two or three years ago, if you go back, we didn’t even — there was a lot of talk about whether or not you could even develop the technology necessary to put a battery, an electric battery in a car and have it go 40 or 100 miles without kicking into a gas engine or charging it every 10 miles. That was unsure.

      There was also a lot of doubt about whether any type of car like this would ever be built in this country or driven in this country. And if they were driven in this country, they would likely have been shipped over here and imported. Now these cars will say made in America, by American workers and bought by Americans. And that is — that’s significant.

    1. Well, maybe just a little rage.

      1. Rage is extremely underrated.

        Noonan doesn’t see that because she’s a scared old lady now.

    2. Poor Peggy. She is a smart woman. And times like these are hard for the best and brightest. Best and the brightest are good for new ideas and new thinking. Sadly for them that is the last thing we need. It doesn’t take a genius to know what is wrong with government. It doesn’t take the best and the brightest to get the government out of people’s lives. Any idiot could do that. It just takes someone with the courage to tell the truth and follow through. And that fact makes the best and brightest superfluous. They want big plans and new government solutions to everything because that is what makes them needed. Stop stealing other peoeple’s money and stop trying to run everyone’s life is pretty thin gruel for them.

      1. That has been the GOP motto for years: Who needs the best and the brightest? Vote GOP instead!

        1. The best and the brightest are rockin’ right now.

        2. Personally, I think the brightest are also full of rage at this point.

          The only people not full of rage are the best connected, and while that is a form of cunning too, I don’t think it’s what is usually meant by the expression “the best”.

        3. There is not one institution in this country, education, government, media, you name it outside of the military that hasn’t been run by liberals and in furtherance of liberal ideology for the past 40 years. And all of those institutions are now failing spectacularly.

          But liberals are the smart ones. They have just somehow managed to go a long ways to destroying the richest most successful civilization in history. They have managed to put places like California, New York and Detroit that were once the most productive and richest places in history into bankruptcy.

          But you are the smart ones right? Everything liberals have touched in the last 40 years has ended in failure and bankruptcy. Every place they have ruled is worse off today than it was when they came. History will not look kindly on 20th Century American liberalism. It has literally been a forty year run of unimaginable failure.

          1. “There is not one institution in this country, education, government, media, you name it outside of the military that hasn’t been run by liberals and in furtherance of liberal ideology for the past 40 years.”

            How about economic institutions (the business sector)?

            “It has literally been a forty year run of unimaginable failure.”

            Yeah, if you talk to a woman, or black person, or gay person, they were so much better off forty years ago John!

            1. “How about economic institutions (the business sector)?”

              You ran those to by virtue of government interference. Detroit was the greatest industrial city on earth in 1950. Now after sixty years of liberal policies it is a wasteland.

              And couldn’t we have had the civil rights movement, which had plenty of Republican support, without you people imposing your insane economic policies on the country? We could have ended Jim Crow without letting you people destroy the country.

              Face it MNG, you are a man of the past. Every idea you have has been tried and failed. It is just a matter of the rest of us paying the bill for your and people like you’s stupidity now. The repo man commeth and he comes for the.

              1. It had plenty of support from liberal Republicans, and opposition from conservative Democrats. Look at the districts that voted for the major civil rights bills forty years ago and look at whether they went blue or red in recent presidential elections John. Go ahead, take a look.

                “You ran those to by virtue of government interference.”

                Pathetic dodge, pathetic. Liberals certainly don’t run the business sector, and look at the influence that sector has on all the others (academe, the media, government, etc).

                1. “Liberals certainly don’t run the business sector, and look at the influence that sector has on all the others (academe, the media, government, etc).”

                  They certainly did. They created things like laws that abolished the right to work and skewed negotiations in favor of unions. They regulated the hell out of business and made it more profitable to move elsewhere. They created tax laws that didn’t reward long term investment. The passed regulations that protected old line companies but made it impossible for small ones to grow.

                  Why is California, once the richest place on earth, losing population and going bankrupt? Why is Detroit a wasteland? People like you have run both of those places for decades. But it is just bad luck that the places liberals run slowly die.

                2. Actually, a combination of carrots and sticks [subsidies on the one hand, capricious application of law and regulation on the other hand] has bred a generation of business leaders who know damn well that the best way to succeed is to exploit the many rent-seeking opportunities provided by liberal government at all levels.

                  So yeah, that sector is pretty much corrupted too.

              2. “”Detroit was the greatest industrial city on earth in 1950. Now after sixty years of liberal policies it is a wasteland.”””

                Are you sure it wasn’t cause by Americans buying foreign cars?

                1. “Are you sure it wasn’t cause by Americans buying foreign cars?”

                  Yes. First, a lot of those “foreign cars” are made in America in places other than Detroit. Second, America didn’t buy those foreign cars because they wanted to see Detroit fail. They bought them because Detroit stopped making a decent product. And why was that? The UAW. And why did the UAW have so much power? Liberals and stupidity on big three’s part.

                  We still make millions of cars in this country. We just don’t make them in Detroit anymore. Why couldn’t Toyota have built their plants in Detroit rather than Texas?

                  1. Toyota is racist!

          2. “you name it outside of the military”

            Liberals have been in charge of the military since the first brand of progressives 100 years ago.

            1. Liberals use the military to further their Wilsonian ideals. But they don’t run or play much of a part in it.

              1. I would say this is true given that Chris Matthews portrayed Obama being at West Point as Obama being “in the enemy camp”.

    3. Unaffordable at Any Speed
      President Obama’s electric car subsidies are snobby and foolish.
      By Charles Lane
      Posted Friday, July 30, 2010, at 9:51 AM ET

      1. Coming are the days when a stranger appears at your door asking to plug in his car because his battery just died.

        1. “Excuse me, I was wondering if I could borrow a gallon of electricity…”

        2. It’s already happening. The WaPo had an article about the idiotic lengths clown car owners would go to to recharge their batteries after they ran down far from home. One that I recall was unplugging soda machines after hours at closed gas stations and then sitting there for hours.

          I’d link it, but the WaPo thinks there is a market for their old bird cage liners and have it behind a pay wall.

          1. “PLEASE DO NOT TOW. Have gone to gas station for six mile long extension cord.”

            1. Oh, that reminds me of a Trabi joke:

              VEB Sachsenring brought out a new Eco-Trabi: Immediately available for delivery, extremely cheap, extremely quiet, extremely environmentally friendly – with electric power train. Problem: The extension cord is only 20 meters long and not in stock!

          2. The sad part is that these fucks don’t consider that to be stealing.

    1. Oops! Guess we’ll have to enact yet another retroactive fix.

    2. That law requires the ICE to deputize states to enforce immigration law. A state still can’t give itself that authority without Federal permission, so really nothing has changed. If anything, this makes the Arizona lawmakers look even more foolish: there was already an established way for them to accomplish their stated goal, they only had to ask the DHS to authorize their officers to do so.

      But then there would have been no political grandstanding or mugging for the cameras. Just a sensible and drama-free event. And who wants that?

      1. they only had to ask the DHS to authorize their officers to do so.

        You seem to be assuming the answer would be “yes”.

        A state still can’t give itself that authority without Federal permission, so really nothing has changed.

        The grant of power over immigration and naturalization to the federal government occurs in the same section of the Constitution as the grant of power over interstate commerce.

        Since interstate commerce covers apparently every human activity according to SCOTUS, doesn’t that argument prove too much? ie, that states can’t enforce laws on anything?

  8. GOP to Breibart, “We’re going to pretend like you don’t exist, but keep scoring political points for us. Kthxbai.”

  9. Homeownership rate at lowest point since 1960.

    This, after years of the federal government doing everything it can to increase home ownership. Yet all those Chonies out there still thing big government can solve any problem.

    1. The market is racist.

    2. This, after years of the federal government doing everything it can to increase home ownership.

      So, just *imagine* how bad it would be without the federal interventions!

    3. You mean artificially inflating the prices of an asset lowers ownership of that asset? Who would have thought that?

      1. I mean, that’s basic economics! It can be worked out on a CHART. a CHART, mind you!

        I mean take college degrees. Er, wait a minute, back to the chart…

        1. Not a good response. -1

          1. Well, we subsidize college degrees and their price has increased, and yet more people today get college degrees than before, so I kind of thought the analogy on point.

            1. We subsidize college degrees and people not pay literally hundreds of times what they paid for the same product thirty years ago.

              Yeah, if you give away free money for people to spend on a product, the price of that product will go up. Since you can’t repossess a college degree, the college degree ownership will never go down as long as you keep handing out the loans for new suckers to get the degrees. Since you can repossess a house, housing ownership will inevitably go down once the people you loaned all that money to finally get to a point where they can’t pay it back.

              You really are dumb as a post MNG>

              1. John, you can also factor in the fact that a college degree is practically worthless at this point–except for the disheartening fact that it will help you get a job you probably didn’t need a college degree to do in the first place.

                1. Exactly. Most of the people I know aren’t even in the field they studied, and they also admit they forgot most of what they learned. In a system with some sanity they would have just learned a trade after high school instead of waisting everyones time and money.

              2. In the college degree context subsidization led to more degrees in more people’s hands. Actually, the logic suggests that this means that not enough help was given in the housing context to help “seal the deal”.

                1. “Actually, the logic suggests that this means that not enough help was given in the housing context to help “seal the deal”.”

                  No it suggests that you can’t subsidize your way to prosperity you fucking moron. We gave people trillions of dollars in subsidized loans. And all it did was raise the price of houses to the point that people now have to spend 50% of their income on housing. If you had given more, the price of housing would have gone up just that much more. And we would have been in even worse shape.

                2. “Actually, the logic suggests that this means that not enough help was given in the housing context to help “seal the deal”.”

                  No it suggests that you can’t subsidize your way to prosperity you fucking moron. We gave people trillions of dollars in subsidized loans. And all it did was raise the price of houses to the point that people now have to spend 50% of their income on housing. If you had given more, the price of housing would have gone up just that much more. And we would have been in even worse shape.

                3. You’re assuming the degrees maintained the same inherent value. Given grade inflation and a lowering of standards to get more subsidy per student I’d say you left a huge part of the this analogy out.

                  I won’t mention the useless nature of humanity degrees. Opps.

                  1. At least those of us with humanity degrees know how to spell “oops.”

                    1. I guess that’s worth something.

                4. So houses should just be given free to everybody?

                  1. That’s not far off what we are doing with degrees. The emphasis should be on “given.”

                5. The notion that everyone deserves a college education, just like the notion that everyone deserves to own their own home, is peculiarly American. You don’t see any such thing in otherwise very similar cultures – Europe, say.

                6. “In the college degree context subsidization led to more degrees in more people’s hands.”

                  College degrees are just like fiat currency. The more you print the less they’re worth.

              3. “Since you can’t repossess a college degree, the college degree”

                You’ve never heard of re-education camps? Because a lot of countries have used them.

                1. There’s no need to reposes a college degree. Bankruptcy has no bearing on what you owe the federal government. Why would they want to give up an indentured servant?

    4. Apparently that’s the fault of the Republicans loosening regulation on the banks, though.

      Which is nonsense, but hey, you gotta keep the faith.

      1. It was a bipartisan effort.

      2. Because banks had nothing to do with securitizing, buying, etc., bad mortgages and insuring said purchases!

        What were those numbskulls thinking?

        1. Because the banks didn’t know they would be bailed out when it all went south, right?

          1. I don’t think any of them thought they would be bailed out, they thought they were going to be rich.

            1. That’s bullshit. Citi is on their second major bailout. The big ones knew they wouldn’t be allowed to fail. Too big to fail used to be a myth or debated idea, but was never actually solidified into doctrine. Now it’s the fucking law.

              1. The banks knew it would work this way. They are not stupid.

            2. Well, they should have thought that.

              Two generations of pro-homeownership tax and land use policies, and a decade of artificially low interest rates, created a data set that said that real estate values only go up.

              If the government hired bureaucrats to run around throwing people in the air constantly, I’d forgive anyone who looked at the data set and concluded that gravity had ceased to function.

              If the statists don’t like the bets that were made on mortgage bonds, they should have thought of that before they created the conditions that made those bets appear reasonable.

          2. Yep, that’s kind of what the FDIC was for. It was supposed to protect individuals, allowing them to always be able to withdraw their money.

            Instead, it removed the inherent risk of investing. Why not go crazy with someone else’s money if you have a giant federal fund waiting to bail you out when you muck it all up?

    5. “This, after years of a largely housing market based recession.”



    Look at this racist questioning of one of this countries great leaders.

    1. You’re out in November, Pete.

    2. My favorite part is the very end when Pete snarks out “Thanks, that makes me feel comfortable”.

      Can’t those racist serfs get it through their thick heads that they are upsetting their betters?

  11. Here’s an article from the WSJ on how the new credit card regulations caused banks to think up even tricker and nastier fees:…..73064.html

    Who could possibly have seen this coming?

    1. Ida know!

    2. Not me!

    3. We preferred the more obvious nasty fees!

    4. What’s the difference between an economist and a businessman?

      The economist will add the effect of the regulation to the model. The businessman will figure out how to get around it.

    5. Fees? How about this. Not a credit card, but a bank. I went to PNC Bank to cash a business check that was drawn on their bank, and because I didn’t have an account with them, they charged me $10 on a $750 check. That’s more than cashing an unemployment check at a cheesy check casing place. How the fuck can they justify that?

      1. How the fuck can they justify that?

        Your willingness to pay it?

        1. Yes, just like my willingness to pay taxes? OK, no coercion there. But, what I did do, was backcharge the person who wrote me the check on the next invoice. Do you think they are aware of the charge? I sure as shit didn’t tell them. So, was I dishonest, or did I merely perpetuate the bank’s action by passing on the added cost to the consumer?

          1. Do you think they are aware of the charge?

            What are the circumstances that prevent you from using your own bank to cash these checks? Is there no competitor who is charging less for check cashing, such as Wal-Mart?

      2. That’s more than cashing an unemployment check at a cheesy check casing place.

        Why do you think there’s so much press and political momentum against micro-credit like payday loans, check cashing stores, title loans, pawn transactions, etc.? It couldn’t be that the banking industry stands to gain tremendously by the elimination of alternative financial services for the commoners, could it?

  12. Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen says U.S. has plan to attack Iran if it’s necessary to prevent the country from acquiring nuclear weapons.

    Meh. They are supposed to have plans for every conceivale contingency. The US attacking Iran over nukes is one of those.

    1. True, but running around saying you have a plan isn’t the best of ideas w/ respect to dealing with Iran.

    2. They are supposed to have plans for every conceivable contingency.

      The continued existence of Lady Gaga proves this idea farcical.

      1. I assumed Lady GaGa was just a future Madonna that had been sent back in time to restore her flagging career.

        Look for future Prince soon.

        1. I’d take that flagging career. Either one.

          1. Do you have room in your mansion for several Third World Orphans and cone shaped bras?

            1. Hell ya. If I have room for them in my current residence I’ll have room for more in a larger residence.

      2. Unless Lady Gaga is part of the plan to overthrow the regime in Iran.

        1. She won’t be a real factor in military contingencies against Iran until Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is lifted.

        2. Dear God, no! They’ve gone Gaga!

  13. Also, isn’t this the 20th anniversary of Saddam’s invasion/attempted annexation of Kuwait?

    The world is still dealing with the fallout from that. After the Gulf War, the US and its allies considered it necessary (for obvious reasons) to have a strong containment policy against the Baathist regime: bases in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (with their consent), no-fly zones, occasional bombing of nuclear programs, etc. This projection of power by non-Muslims on the Arabian Peninsula was the proximate motivation for Al-Qaeda’s was of aggression against the US.

    1. Should be “war of aggression” in the last sentence.

      1. Not quite “Treaty of Versailles” territory but still pretty good.

        1. I’m not sure what you are getting at. Are you drawing an analogy between the Treaty of Versailles and post-Gulf-War containment of Saddam?

    1. Wait, are you calling Clutch frat-metal? This will not stand.

    2. Classic rock / blogpimping for those who prefer that to metal.

      1. Donnie Iris is still huge in Pittsburgh, where his name is pronounced “Dawnie Ahrs”.

        1. I didn’t know you spoke Yinzer, Warty. I have to assume you learned it to insult Steelers fans.

          As a kid, I remember the Boston radio stations playing Ah, Leah! like it was #1 on the charts. Then again, it was a pretty good song.

          1. I lived in Pittsburgh for years. I have a small amount of love for the place and a large amount of hatred for it.

            Pants ‘n at

  14. U.S. drinking rate highest since 1985.

    Really, can you blame us?

  15. “MNG morphed into Edward so slowly, most people didn’t even notice.”

    1. I feel your pain my sensitive friend.

      1. If only you were funny. I mean you try to be funny, but you really can’t even manage snark. It’s kind of sad really. I’d feel sorry for you if you weren’t so useless.

        1. Zounds, I’m wounded to the quick!

          1. Zounds? Now I feel sorry for you.

            1. Short for “God’s wounds.” Again, I appreciate your nearly feminine empathy…

          1. Speaking of feminine empathy, John T. weighs in from the shadows of his mind…

            1. ChonyMNG/Epi, go argue with all of your extra handles on your own thread. Nobody likes you here.

              1. Since Episiarch is an anarchist, I’m not sure it’s right to lump him in with statists.

                1. Great way for MNG to argue with itself.

                  1. Nah, they don’t read the same.

    2. he’s pithy

      1. If by that you mean bitter and full of pectin, I agree.

          1. Works both ways, really. Like Warty’s penis.


  17. File the Iran invasion plans next to the plans to invade Canada.

    1. The mighty meese army is far superior to the camel army.

      Is that racist?

      1. Yes. Racist.

    2. Keep your filthy yank hands off my country. And besides, NZ should obviously be black.

      1. Racist. You think you get some special invasion protection because you are all white.

        1. I know a black Canadian? And one seal clubber.

          Is that racist?

          1. I pity the fools.

        2. Nope, real Kiwis are all black.

    3. When “War Plan Red” (the plan in the linked wikipedia piece) was declassified in 1974 The Toronto Star ran a breathless “expose” of it that was just full of “this proves what we always knew about those imperialist bastards” fury.

      A few weeks later One of the other toronto dailies* ran a story to the effect that “of course they have a plan to invade Canada, all countries have a plan to invade the countries next door.” It then went on to describe Defence Scheme No. 1, Canada’s plan to invade the US drawn up by Lieutenant Colonel James “Buster” Sutherland Brown.

      IIRC, the article then went on to say that for the most part these kinds of “war plans” are not much more than study assignments for bored senior officers who really don’t have all that much to occupy their time in a peacetime military.

      *probably The Sun, probably Canada’s most right-wing mainstream rag and home to the only pro-American journos there.

      1. Defence Scheme No.1,


  18. I think we should invade Australia and confiscate all their Victoria Bitter.

    1. And their Vegemite!

      And then to New Zealand for their Kiwis! YEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAAA

      1. And their women.

  19. I think we should develop a final solution for Godwinning.

    1. This may be the most epic Godwin of a thread ever.

    2. This blog does need some lebensraum, now that you mention it.

      1. We should start commenting on Hit & Run threads on other blogs.

        1. +googolplex

          1. Obviously, with no explanation at all. Maybe a link, but nothing else, even when directly asked.

        2. Where should we start? Yglesias, maybe?

          1. Anywhere libertarian minorities are oppressed should work.

          2. So, we will need a new word for Reason the Vaterland.

            1. Grund?

            2. The Gunt Reich.

    3. Yes, and the battle to do so should be as quick as lightening.

  20. You’ll be shocked to hear this, but Bob Herbert of the NYT thinks CORPORATIONS ARE EVIL.

    1. It’s stupid to think of corporations as evil. It’s better to recognize them for what they are: entities created for the monomanical maximization of shareholder profit. Such an entity is extremely useful in doing what it is designed to do, and that is usually a good thing. Of course taken as a whole it’s borderline sociopathic behavior, but as long as it is kept in a narrow realm it’s a great wealth creating device.

      1. Are you seriously suggesting that a non-human collective entity can be diagnosed with human psychology? Or that people acting in their own self interests are sociopathic?

        1. A person who focuses solely on their own material self interest is acting sociopathic dude.

          1. Please don’t sockpuppet MNG. He’s quite capable of coming up with something this idiotic on his own.

            1. No sockpuppet. What would you call a person who focuses solely on his material self interest?

              1. Productive.

                1. I think you meant to say “alone reading the Fountainhead for the 23rd time”

              2. It entirely depends on what he believes his interest to be served by.

                And what he believes his interest to be.

              3. What would you call a person who focuses solely on his material self interest?

                Selfish??? Human??? Rational???

                1. We all act in our own self-interest.
                  But some of us have yet to recognize or admit the fact.

                  1. Well, CN, I think we all act in ways we believe to be in our own self-interest and with any luck the market alerts us when we are in error.

                    A number of people believe it’s in their self-interest to interfere in other people’s business. These people generally wreak havoc on the lives of those people but manage to reap rewards using guilt and shame and appealing to the good natures of those people. They usually have some “good book” like The Bible, The Koran, The Communist Manifesto or Mein Kampf to quote from.

                    1. I posted too soon, IB. I believe that some of those people to whom you are referring truly believe that they are acting only for the betterment of others. And that way lies trouble.

                    2. That was my general point CN.

                      For the most part if you err in determining what is in your self interest the market will smack you into correcting yourself.

                      Self-righteous busybodies, on the other hand, have no such self correcting mechanism. Their ability to manipulate people using shame and guilt pretty much guarantees they will profit in spite of not having done anything at all useful for the people they have duped.

                      Yes, you’re right. Most of these people think they’re doing their victims a favor.

                  2. +1

                    But it’s so much cooler to fake a veneer of altruism.

                    1. Feh – stupid threading. My +1 was to “We all act in our own self-interest” – credit where credit is due etc. etc.

              4. What would you call a person who focuses solely on his material self interest?

                Hey douchebag, do you have any idea how much money guys like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett give to charity? They wouldn’t be able to this without their evil corporations. Sure, some businessmen are sociopaths who don’t care about anyone other than themselves, but most of them aren’t.

                Seriously, just go kill yourself, you fucking asshole.

      2. “It’s better to recognize them for what they are: entities created for the monomanical maximization of shareholder profit.”

        My company donates millions to charity every year. You need to retool your definition.

        1. Some companies find that donating millions will make them even more money in the long run. If they did not have this rationale they would actually be breaking their fiduciary duty to their holders. They’ve had lawsuits over this ya know.

          1. While true, the latter is completely false. If the company has a social goal then it has a fiduciary responsibility to donate.

            Another interesting point about your first comment about making/saving money. The reason for this, of course, is in part due to tax laws.

            1. while the first part is true…

      3. Of course governments are never capable of sociopathic behavior, just every other human institution except government.

        “but as long as it is kept in a narrow realm it’s a great wealth creating device.”

        What the fuck does that even mean? You stupidity is really strong today.

        1. John
          Once again your fevered Hannity/Beck-shaped and ill-informed vision of what liberals are and what they believe rears its ugly head. You assume that i must think government is always good or something. Actually government is usually the most direct tool utilized in oppressing people (naturally given its usual monopoly on the use of force). Like any good liberal I like to see the government tied up quite a bit (see, ACLU).

          1. Government is always bad in the abstract. But you have never seen a government policy in reality that you actually objected to. I assume you love government because you show it here every day. There is not one problem in the world you don’t think can be solved by giving government more power and people less. No amount of two faced rhetoric about government changes the reality.

            And you still didn’t bother to explain what you are even talking about.

            1. Government policy I abhor?

              Hmm, asset forfeiture. WOD. Pit-bull bans. Affirmative action. Gun control. The Iraq war. A lot of our WOT policy.

              Shall I go on?

              1. So what. You only object to those programs because you don’t see the things they are designed to solve as problems. You don’t see drug use as a problem, so you object to government action on it. But if you did, government would be your solution. You didn’t see Saddam as being anything but a misunderstood guy, so you don’t support the war. But you would absolutely support government action to solve everything you think of as being a problem.

                Just because you don’t hold every cow sacred, doesn’t make you anything but what you are.

            2. I think MNG is saying that he likes governmental clusterfucks whereas John is alluding to the roman god Janus.

          2. The ACLU ties up government? I think at best their efforts result in a wash.

      4. Technically they’re just entities created to execute a charter.

        Besides, if executives’ obligations to their clients put them at odds with the public interest, that puts them in the same boat as defense lawyers or doctors that withhold evidence of crime in the name of patient confidentiality, not to mention government lawyers that argue in courts to support laws or actions that violate our constitutional rights.

  21. And- hold on to your hats! Krugabe doesn’t think the government is doing enough to create jobs.

    1. Maybe we should have a economically stimulating Democratic war rather than an economically depressing Republican war. That should break a lot of windows.

      1. Why not kill two birds with one stone and throw everyone on unemployment into the military?

        1. Or we could nuke Chicago and re-form the WPA. That would create or save millions of jobs AND clear a bunch of people off of the unemployment rolls.

          1. Not bad, but you need to be more specific with your policies.

            1. But really… eating “the rich” only makes sense. The poor are full of chemicals and hard to render fat.

        2. My predecessors and I tried that. It ended with a march on Rome.

  22. Hypocrisy Alert: GOP upset that Obama administration wants to use bureaucratic maneuvers to avoid enforcing immigration laws; wants to do the same thing with health insurance mandate when they get into power.

    1. “”Hypocrisy Alert:””

      The hypocrisy alert is alway at red when talking about politicians.

  23. My company donates millions to charity every year.

    They just do it to get laid.

    1. If only that were a joke you were making.

      1. Double post on different threads! Suck it, blog physics!

  24. We could round up unemployed people and pay them to tear down unoccupied houses, and plant organic vegetables on the land. Detroit would be a good place to start.

    1. If only that were a joke you were making.

    2. Aren’t all vegetables organic by nature?

      1. “Organic” is just code for “Deliberately inefficient.” The labor intensive nature of “organic gardening” creates more jobs. As will breaking all the tractors and combines. Exciting new opportunities are on the horizon in the growing fields of “Human plow horse” and “Hand thresher.”

        1. Exciting new opportunities are on the horizon in the growing fields of “Human plow horse” and “Hand thresher.”

          So those are the green jobs Obama keeps talking about.

          1. Digging mass graves for starvation victims is the next big growth industry.

            Is Chevy developing electric backhoes?

            1. Use shovels. It’ll create more jobs, don’t ya know.

        2. I thought “organic” was newspeak for “grown in unsterilized shit”.

        3. And when the required organics are too expensive for the economically challenged, we’ll just have to give them veggie vouchers. Anybody who does not agree with this plan hates poor people.

  25. Like any good liberal

    You’re communicating from beyond the grave?

  26. Apparently someone somewhere has made these “Tea Party Comix” which contain some pretty racist content. There are claims going around that these actually were made by Tea Party-affiliated people, but I think that’s pretty unlikely, given that they also function as parodies of old comics, something your average Tea Partier is unlikely to know a lot about.

    Rachel Maddow’s blog has mentioned it, but at least it admits that no one actually knows if the Tea Party really made these things.

    I think the comics are probably either a parody of the Tea Party, or a meta-parody of the whole Tea Party/racism situation itself.…..t-a-plant/

    Kind of an amusing story.

    1. My guess is that it’s a parody. Some of those secondary or crowd characters look like they’re from Gary Panter’s Jimbo comix.

      1. Hey! Falsely painting people as racists was our idea

  27. “Organic” is just code for “Deliberately inefficient.”

    I was getting ready to make the same point, only using the formulation, “‘Organic’ is code for ‘doing it the hard way’.”

  28. Double post on different threads!

    You’re gonna end up on a dunking stool, if you persist in pulling stunts like that.

    1. Only if they can find me! [BAMPF!]

    1. The comments are adorable:

      matthew miller (FloydMiller) wrote:

      Howard Zinn was anything but a coward! And even if the man were a Communist, and I do mean if, he had every right to be according to the rights we hold dear in this country. AND furthermore most people in this country dont know what Communism really is! What the Soviets created and what the Chinese and North Koreans created is not Communism, it’s Dictatorship, Totalitarianism. But many people in our country dont READ, because it’s easier to be told what’s what!

      Saturday, July 31, 2010 2:04:28 PM

      1. Zinn did have every right to be a communist. I love it when people accuse the country of general ignorance right after making some breathtakingly ignorant statement themselves.

        1. I agree that he had the right to be a communist, and even to despise his own country.

          But now that we know what we know, I don’t believe that his work should be taught as objective history in any schools, and especially in public schools. He wasn’t a true historian; he was a propagandist.

          1. This is absolute nonsense and is yet one more piece of evidence that the public schools are a pernicious menace that shouldn’t exist.

            The state doesn’t get to decide who is and who is not a “real” historian.

            And did you even RTFA? I don’t like Zinn’s work, but the file doesn’t appear to offer a single scintilla of actual evidence that Zinn was a member of the CPUSA.

            1. “The state doesn’t get to decide who is and who is not a “real” historian.”

              When it goes into the education business and claims a monopoly on such it sure as hell does. By choosing who gets taught and who doesn’t, the government by default decides who is a “real historian”.

              Yes, that is an argument against government run schools. And if you want to get rid of them and replace them with a voucher system, you have my vote. But until that happens, we are stuck with public education and the reality that the government has at the very least the power to decide someone, no matter how vile, is a real historian. And if they have that power, they ought to be held accountable for how they use it and for teaching crap like Zinn.

            2. The state doesn’t get to decide who is and who is not a “real” historian.

              Get real. In the real life public school system the state is determining the cirricula, including whose work will be used to teach it.

  29. Is Chevy developing electric backhoes?

    Much too efficient; miniature gardeners’ shovels for everyone.

    1. spoons. Flimsy plastic spoons that break regularly — keeping that factory running at full capacity.

      1. sporks. The engineers will need something to design and spoons are too simple.

        1. You haven’t seen Spoon 2.0. With powered attachments and laser tracking devices, it weighs in at 8.2 pounds.

          Never underestimate an engineer’s ability to make the simple absurdly complex.

          1. Spoon v2.0 was a DOD funded spoon. Wasn’t it?

            1. Technology testbed. We crammed everything we could on it to demonstrate the feasibility of spoon-based technologies to attract venture capital.

      2. But the flimsy plastic spoons can’t be made from petroleum based plastics.

        The plastics will have to be plant-based. Organically grown plants, of course.

  30. Off topic — I just got a call from Ralph Nader. (He wants to chat about back-scatter airport scanners.)
    Apparently he’s got a lot of time on his hands these days.

  31. If he changes his name from Ralph to Abdul, he won’t have to worry about getting irradiated at airports.

  32. Of course it is that much of a surprise that there are contingency plans. Obama always maintained that using force was an option on the table (but “only as a last resort”). And if they did end up bombing Iran’s nuclear sites (which is probably all that they would do, not a full scale invasion and regime change), I’m assuming they would have a plan beforehand rather than just wing it.

    But it brings up an interesting question. Suppose sanctions and other efforts fail and it really does come down to a choice between:

    1) Let Iran get the bomb
    2) Bomb Iran’s nuclear sites

    Which would you prefer the US government do?

    It is a tough call. What would they do next if they get it? And what would be the cost be, in terms of people killed and the geopolitical aftermath of such an attack?

  33. What would you call a person who focuses solely on his material self interest?

    A politician?

  34. FOX gets Thomas’ chair.

    From not real news to front row in one year. Jesus this administration is a fucking joke, and not the haha funny joke.

    1. What a slap in my flabby, wrinkled-up, prune face.

  35. Nice to be visiting your blog again Air jordan 1, it has been months for me. Well this article that i’ve been waited for so long. I need this article to complete my assignment in the college, and it has same topic with your article Air Jordan 2010. Thanks, great share.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.