Reason Morning Links: McCain Wins, a Palin Surprise in Alaska, Al Qaeda Threat Shifts to Yemen

|

NEXT: Guilt by Complication

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. http://www.610wiod.com/cc-comm…..le=7510712

    Used car prices up as much as 30%. It is almost like the government was intentionally destroying the stock of used cars or something.

    1. All for a one-quarter adjustment in the sales of new cars. This administration is moronic.

    2. Higher used car prices are good for current car owners, just like higher housing prices are good for homeowners.

      1. Until there’s no market for your used goods anymore.

  2. Good to see Murkowski’s spawn go down.

    1. Amen to that. It’s a shame that McCain wasn’t challenged by someone less oily and clownish than Hayworth. He was definitely vulnerable.

      1. It is a shame he has let himself be so craven. McCain should have walked off the stage in 2010 with dignity. The way Obama has turned out McCain’s reputation would have only improved.

        1. Mr. Campaign Finance Reform spent about $20 million to retain his seat.

          1. And for what? To be a Senator for six more years? The guy is a millionaire several times over. I just don’t get it. With his health, who knows how long he has to live. The fact that he would spend that kind of money to stay in office when the alternative is a life of leisure just shows what a life in politics does to people or what kind of people politics attracts.

            1. He’s going to be the “Lion of the Senate” or something.

              1. The Cabot Lodge from Arizona…

                1. It just shows that being in the Senate has gotten too attractive. It should be a burden to be in the Congress. That is why they call it “public service”. It should be a low paying lousy job that people do out of loyalty to the country and leave after a few years. That way people wouldn’t stay too long.

                  We should make them unpaid positions that come with room and board at a college style dorm near the capital. They should have to pay their own transportation costs and any other incidental expenses. Oh and the dorm wouldn’t have air conditioning.

                  1. I completely agree John. If I had my way the Capitol would be a warehouse style building without heating or air conditioning.

                  2. Im in favor of drafting politicians, if you served in the armed forces, you are immune from the draft, having already done your time.

                  3. We should make them unpaid positions that come with room and board at a college style dorm near the capital. They should have to pay their own transportation costs and any other incidental expenses. Oh and the dorm wouldn’t have air conditioning.

                    Good luck getting the best and brightest under those conditions.

                    1. We sure as hell don’t get the best and brightest NOW, so I think we should take our chances.

                    2. Well, the current system certainly isn’t working there either.

                  4. Oh and the dorm wouldn’t have air conditioning.

                    Cmon now, that’s just cruel.

                    They can have AC, but they can only set it as low as 85F.

                    No heaters though. If they get cold, they have to burn lawbooks for warmth and anything burned is automatically repealed.

              2. Someone should tow that lion.

            2. Because merely being rich doesn’t give you nearly as much power and access as being Senator John McCain.

              1. Welch’s book goes pretty far into explaining McCain’s motivations…

              2. Power and access to do what? When is enough enough?

                1. When he’s president and can at last avenge himself upon his North Vietnamese captors.

                  1. Being a good Christian, he has forgiven them.

                    1. Yes, but he also believes that they need to be baptized in cleansing fire.

                    2. That goes without saying. I think it’s a permanent plank in the Conservative platform.

                    3. Actually, I think the Republicans are done worrying about Vietnam. This is personal.

            3. Arizona republicans like McCain. As a NYer, I don’t care, it’s for the people of Arizona to decide who they want to represent their state.

              1. Arizonans hate Vietnam?

            4. You think he wants to stay home all day and hear his daughter whine that her blogging career is suddenly not taking off?

  3. Residents of New York City will get a third chance to endorse term limits in November, but if it passes incumbent politicians will be exempt.

    You really can’t make this shit up…

    1. I thought you were making that shit up, then I actually looked at the link, and yep. There is no doubt that incumbents are generally craven individuals who are essentially incapable of voting to reduce their own power.

      1. It’s not like the entire point of term limits is to unseat entrenched incumbents or anything.

        1. It’s better than the last two times we approved it, under the apparently naive assumption that incumbents wouldn’t simply overturn it. This one supposedly prevents that.

    2. Meh. Doesn’t matter that much. If you enact term limits, career politicians always find some other office to run for. If they can’t run for state assembly they run for state senate, if they can’t run for governor they run for mayor of some big city, etc.

      1. Yeah, but term limits would limit their supply of offices.

        BTW – the phenomenon you mentioned describes Bill McCollum to a “T”. I think I’d vote for Lavrenti Beria before I’d vote for McCollum.

        1. Last I checked, McCollum narrowly lost to Rick Scott yesterday. He will, no doubt, request a recount. If there is any way he can use his AG position to rig the recount he will probably do it. But it looks like the major party candidates for Governor will be Scott and Alex Sink. The libertarian candidate looks like he still wears an onion on his belt. I think I will be wearing all black on election day again.

          1. I may vote for Scott in the general. Better a corrupt business man than a corrupt, career politician.

            1. I may write in Bobby Bowden. Watching him pretend he knows what is going on at cabinet meetings would be pretty funny.

    3. Ever read the 22nd amendment, MNG?

      Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

    4. I don’t really support term limits. If that’s who the people want to elect, regulations should not get in their way.

  4. “CIA: Biggest Al Qaeda threat is now in Yemen.”

    Let’s invade and then rebuild it as a shining example of democracy. It’ll be a cakewalk!

    1. I have a dear friend who spent the last two years in Yemen. It’s actually a pretty beautiful country. Great food, too.

  5. ABC news reported last night that Murkowski’s impending victory over a dangerous right-wing radical with armed supporters marked the End of Sarah Palin, or something. I suspect this is going to shake things up.

    1. DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN!!!

    1. fucking chiptunes. shit midases of the music world. if you’re going to fuck with a classic, at least try to go all the way:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..ure=search

    2. the 8-bit reigning blood was better, reminded me of my first slayer ringtone.

    1. 2/3 of network nightly news is run by teh womyn. Does that count?

    2. Glenn Reynolds had that link the other day. He noted that Timmy and Paulson don’t exactly exude masculinity.

    3. Good grief, I think the “vegetarian womyn” line was used in one of the Airplane! movies. And yes, there it is, in Airplane 2.

      I’m out.

    4. Sorry, Johnny, I thought you pulled that straight from the article. Coffee just finished, hasn’t hit yet!!!

  6. Dave Weigel’s Alaska “GirlFriend” Blows Election Call

    By Alexandra Gutierrez
    Posted Monday, Aug. 23, 2010, at 5:54 PM ET

    Joe Miller and Sarah Palin. Click image to expand.Joe Miller and Sarah PalinUNALASKA, Alaska?On Tuesday, in her home state, Sarah Palin’s favorite will probably get trounced. Joe Miller is widely expected to lose by a large margin to incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski in the Republican primary?an embarrassing defeat for the former governor, who has endorsed Miller, but also to Miller’s other major backer, the Tea Party Express.

    1. Let’s just hope she and Weigel don’t breed.

      1. Since I misssed the Weigel post the other day (part of the Reason Weigel rehabilitation project), I’ll include it here:

        David Weigel

        1. Who are you voting for in November? I’ve got the luxury of a guilt-free, zero-impact vote in the District of Columbia, which I would cast for Bob Barr if he was on the ballot. Since he’s not, I’m voting for Barack Obama, the only remaining candidate whom I trust not to run the country (further) into the ground with stupid and erratic decisions,…

        1. Remember how Lonewacko had this monomania calling out Weigel thing?

          1. In fairness, when was anything about Lonewacko not subject to monomania?

    2. In fairness, what were polls predicting? If she was just reporting what the polls predict then it was less likely biased than just stupid. As for fitting it into a narrative the media in general is just addicted to that, Stewart did a brilliant send up of that on the Daily Show the other day…

      1. It is not a question of who gets polled it is a question of who shows up to vote. The result deviating from the polls so much, means that the establishment of both parties is in even more trouble than the polls say they are.

      2. RTFA MNG

        MS Gutierrez

        1. I don’t click on links posted here, but I do cut and paste…

          1. Copy and paste.

        2. MS Gutierrez discounted the Palin-endorsed “teabagger” polling report of < 1% difference in favor of calling victory for Murkowski on MONDAY.

    3. DC’s powerless couple.

    4. Yeah, Weigel fucked this one up big time. So much for his horse race expertise. Yesterday:
      A Bad Night for the Grizzlies?
      Today:
      Good Night to Be A Mama Grizzly
      He tries to explain it all away in another post today.

      1. Weigel needs to do some “mansplaining” to
        Alexandra Gutierrez about how fucking stupid it is to call elections on a Monday.

        1. In other words, he has to passively-aggressively find a way to make it think it’s HER IDEA to stop being such a dingbat bitch.

      2. Well, in all fairness, alot of us don’t dig Palin anymore. Quitter, greedy bitch and all that.

        That being said, I think her endorsement of Miller did less than his pounding on Murkowski for supporting TARP.

        Tea Party (well, the national version at least) fucked this one up pretty bad though. In an interview yesterday AM he stated that he would do whatever it took to prevent the building of a mosque in NYC. With the thought that such grandiose overreach of power is acceptable, I suspect that cutting budgets will give way to congressional power craving in no time flat once in office.

  7. “Shirley Sherrod turns down offer to rejoin Agriculture Department.”

    I wonder if she will run for something. I imagine they have a minority district House seat or two in GA…

    1. Only if she can’t sue her way into a seat.

      1. She’s got just the Justice Department to do it.

  8. Black intellectuals are dissatisfied with Obama.

    Best line in the article is “He can take the black base for granted because he assumes we have nowhere else to go,” West said. “But we just won’t put up with it. He has got to respect us.” Mr. West, the Democrats have been taking you for granted for decades and you still vote for them, so I’m pretty sure they will continue to not respect you, and you will continue to put up with it.

    1. Hey next time they might only go 95% for the Democrats.

    2. “Black intellectuals are dissatisfied with Obama.”

      Join the f*cking club…

      1. I’d like to point out that Obama has born out my concerns expressed here during the primaries: this is what happens when an inexperienced urban-machine pol gets elected to a national office. Bumbling execution and deference to stupid advisors generating a general incompetence and political deafness.

        When we have President Pawlenty in 2012 I can tell my Dem friends “I told ya so!”

        1. Everyone always blames a President’s advisers. Maybe it is their fault. We are not in the room so we don’t know. But maybe the problem is smart advisers having too much deference to a stupid President. It is easy to call Emmanuel and Axelrod stupid. Just like it was easy to call Bill Bellicheck a bad coach when he went 5-11 in Cleveland. Of course the talent both of them were working with also had something to do with their records.

          1. It’s not so much stupid as that their “talents” don’t translate to the national scene, they can’t wrap their heads around national problems and politics the way they’ve always done in good ol’ corrupt Chicago. That goes for Obama and his advisors.

            I’m talking about his administration and less his “substantive” polic positions btw, though I and I imagine everyone here has plenty to say on that score as well.

            1. Whoa, MNG went rasta there for a second. NOICE.

          2. Just like it was easy to call Bill Bellicheck a bad coach when he went 5-11 in Cleveland.

            That puddle of rat semen Art Modell moving the team had a little something to do with the 1995 collapse. Don’t forget that they were 11-5 the year before. Motherfucking welfare degenerate Modell…

            1. What about 1991, 1992, and 1993? Or his first year in New England when the Pats went 5-11? Bledsoe getting injured in 2001 was the greatest thing that ever happened to Belichick. Without Brady, he hasn’t achieved anything. And then there’s that whole illegally taping other teams incident the NFL was quick to sweep under the carpet.

              1. Hold on, let me get my violin.

              2. And then there’s that whole illegally taping other teams incident the NFL was quick to sweep under the carpet.

                Would you rather it that way, or do you think there should be a congressional investigation into the incident?

                1. Would you rather it that way, or do you think there should be a congressional investigation into the incident?

                  False dichotomy.

                2. Nothing makes me happier than seeing Randy Moss lose the big game. It’s his forte’.

              3. Oh, I hated Belichick plenty back then, and I don’t think he’s as great as he’s been made out to be. I just don’t think 1995 was his fault.

              4. They swept it under the carpet because it wasn’t illegal, but looked bad for the league so they wanted it to go away.

                I was always surprised that no Reason sports fans ever pointed out that, yeah, if you read the league’s rules, and read how the Commissioner’s powers are defined, that what the Patriots did wasn’t illegal and the Commissioner didn’t even have the power to declare it illegal.

        2. Are you intimating that Pawlenty would suck like Obama?

    3. Ah shit, forgot to include the Link

    4. Cornel West is exactly the type of guy Robert Gibbs was mocking as the “professional left”; the sort of extreme leftist who can never be satisfied no matter how much they get.

      What the heck is West’s problem with Obama, anyway? Is he not expressing enough overt hatred for whitey for West’s liking, or what?

    5. Constants are not variable.

    1. Dating a feminist means taking your beatings with dignity. And there is a guy who is a “great women’s studies blogger”? WTF?

      1. But he’s afraid that he’ll forget to check his privilege, or that he’ll fail to notice a particular aspect of that privilege, and that he will end up mansplaining and upsetting someone.

        Or, maybe you could stop manufacturing industrial diamonds by shoving lumps of anthracite up your ass and maybe, just maybe, lighten up a bit.

        We’ll all live longer and happier lives as a result.

        1. Mansplaining? Is that like a manzierre?

    2. My lovely gentleman friend ? I’ll call him, er, Schmaniel ? wants to talk about gender and sex and culture and all those interesting, important things. But he’s afraid that he’ll forget to check his privilege, or that he’ll fail to notice a particular aspect of that privilege, and that he will end up mansplaining and upsetting someone.
      If I had to read that, you do too.

      1. How do these women get dates? What kind of sex addict puts up with that? I like sex as much as anyone. But good God no sex no matter how good is worth that.

        1. Ask former-Cato employee Will Wilkinson.

          1. He dated a feministing chick?

            1. Howley. Although, just based on the twinkle in her eye, I always imagined she was a very kinky girl, the kind you don’t take home to mother.

              1. I have always thought Howley was a total phony about that. She liked to talk a good game. But at heart she seemed like a typical top shelf uptight white girl. I would bet anything that once you got her in bed, she would turn out to be a total fraud. She tried a little bit too hard to give that libertine image for it to be believable. The ones who really are wild, don’t have to try.

                1. I agree with that, John. The button-down gals are usually tigers in the sack. But Howley… like I said… there was just a twinkle.

              2. Giggity.

            2. IIRC he self-identifies as a “feminist”.

          2. Better still, ask him after she totally disrupts his life, puts him through the wringer, and then leaves him flat on his ass.

            Which, as we all know, is likely to happen sooner rather than later.

        2. Guys with low-self esteem. They are the equivalent of girls who get drunk and let Joe Francis film them naked to get back at their daddies for not buying them a pony.

          I would also imagine pychosexual masochism plays a part.

          1. Mother issues maybe to.

          2. I was going to go with they are gay men in denial, but your explanation works, too.

            1. In my experience, closeted gay men go for traditional good girl types because they don’t rock the relationship boat and don’t usually want sex.

              Or they really hate women.

                1. That reminds me of my mother…Judy Garland…

              1. I have had the experience to. Some of the nicest women I have ever know, real church going sweet wonderful women, have ended up being engaged to or marrying men who turned out to be gay.

          3. What is also funny is that they make it so that only a guy with absolutely no self respect would ever date them. And then they bitch and moan about how the men they date are all feckless whinny losers.

            1. The “I want sex much more than he does” complaints are thick whenever the subject comes up.

              I know you have a Graduate degree in Northeast Asian Folk Theatre, but learn enough math to put 2 and 2 together, girlfriend.

          4. The other group would be guys who are total man whores and just don’t care. There are men out there who will say anything and listen to anything to get laid. The worst sort of womanizer has absolutely no standards and will think nothing of nodding their head while these women put out this bullshit, fucking them, and then never calling them again.

            1. Yeah, but again, I imagine it’s meaningless fucking with lots of restrictions – no mirrors, never from behind, etc. I can’t imagine that appeals to the manwhores too much.

              1. I had no idea mirrors were a dealbreaker, lol.

            2. The fake-out feminist one-night stand is not unheard of, but long-term relationships are a different pathology, I imagine.

        3. And I guarantee you the sex isn’t very good.

      2. I’ve quit clicking on the feministing links so my eyes will stop bleeding. It disconcerts my coworkers. Can somebody define “mansplaining” for me?

        1. What bothers me most is the MEET US revolving menu of hogs and dykes that I can’t shut off. Hey “ladies,” sometimes less is more, especially when it comes to your head shots. You’re spoiling the fantasy!

        2. Can somebody define “mansplaining” for me?

          I suspect its all patriarchal, with logic and facts and stuff.

          1. Splaining is when Ricky is trying to explain something to Lucy.

            1. No, it was Lucy that always had some splaining to do. At least that’s what my mother…Judy Garland…told me.

        3. The most popular def from Urban Dictionary:

          To explain in a patronizing manner, assuming total ignorance on the part of those listening. The mansplainer is often shocked and hurt when their mansplanation is not taken as absolute fact, criticized or even rejected altogether. Named for a behavior commonly exhibited by male newbies on internet forums frequented primarily by women. Often leads to a flounce. Either sex can be guilty of mansplaining.

          1. “To explain in a patronizing manner, assuming total ignorance on the part of those listening.”

            Umm, maybe I’m just an idiot, but I’ve always been under the impression that when giving an explanation, unless you are certain your audience has prior knowledge of the subject, you should ALWAYS assume total ignorance of the listener and start with the basics.

            So, question of the day – Am I a pathological mansplainer?

      3. Is there a similar meme that could convey a facepalm that penetrated my skull?

        1. Don’t hit yourself, dude. Youmestic violence isn’t cool.

          1. Wow. That’s…wow.

          2. Youmestic

            A winner is you.

      4. If he would just use his Male Gaze, then he wouldn’t fail to notice shit like that.

    3. That doesn’t mean groveling on the ground in abject apology merely for having a penis ? contrary to stereotype, that’s not what feminists (at least not any I’ve ever met) want.

      Sure it isn’t.

      1. You miss the point Warty: They’ll *never* tell you what they want, because then they might actually get it and they’d have to stop carping and and rejoin society. By constantly saying that this or that isn’t what they want, they keep us off-balance in perpetuity.

        1. I honestly don’t think they’re that viciously cunning; I think they’re so neurotic they have no idea what they want.

          Most mentally healthy women I’ve dated have no problem differentiating sex roles, or recognizing those differences.

          1. Most mentally healthy women I’ve dated

            Wait, they do exist?

    4. I read most of that, and I still couldn’t figure out what “mansplaining” is supposed to be. Can you explain, SugarFree?

      1. Mansplaining isn’t just the act of explaining while male, of course; many men manage to explain things every day without in the least insulting their listeners.

        Mansplaining is when a dude tells you, a woman, how to do something you already know how to do, or how you are wrong about something you are actually right about, or miscellaneous and inaccurate “facts” about something you know a hell of a lot more about than he does.

        Bonus points if he is explaining how you are wrong about something being sexist!

        More

        1. If you get insulted whenever a man explains something, the problem may not be him.

          1. As a man dating a feminist it would be your duty to never tell her something she doesn’t know already. It might rob her of her last thread of self-esteem.

            I’d wish bad things on such women, but what can be worse than living the life they already have?

          2. Well, I sort of see where they are coming from in a way. But this has nothing to being a man, it has to do with being a pompous boor. They are just gendering it. Which is sexist… but they can’t be sexist, they are feminists after all.

            Imagine if men started calling the inability to parallel park “Dumbcunting”?

            1. That’s why they are coming out with cars that park themselves. Have you seen the commercials? It’s always women behind the wheel. I’m surprised that there has been no backlash against this cruel stereotype.

            2. I think dumbcunting should be reserved for something more than just parking. Hell there are plenty of other types of bad drivers (Asians, teenageers, eighty-nine year old tax partners that would rather die at their desk than retire) out there.

              1. Precisely my point, Ska. They are taking a cross-gender act and gendering it as “male” for political gain.

            3. Started?

          3. Exactly.

            Funny – nobody ever “mansplains” to me. Ever.

            People disagree with me all the time.

            But I never think to myself, “Wah! They’re mansplaining to me! I better go take another Prozac!”

            There would be a lot less misogyny in the world if these chicks would stop being such cunts.

            1. When someone tries to explain something to me that I know about, I reply with “Yes, yes, I’m aware of that, go on.”

              It’s a real time saver for everyone.

              I know this flies in the face of feminist thinking, but I, personally, don’t know everything about everything. Sometimes, I actually learn something “new” when someone explains something to me unsolicited. Even if that person is a chick.

              1. I also take into consideration that the person giving me an explanation cannot read my mind and hence doesn’t necessarily know how much I know.

        2. The biggest mansplainer I’ve known made me doubt my sanity for years; I am still recovering. This isn’t just a supremely sexist and problematic internet habit. It can be a psychologically violent act.

          it’s kinda like rape and it happens all the time

          1. Honey, let me tell you how electricity works.

          2. It IS rape…psychological rape. Don’t diminish it, you man!

        3. Chicks must never, ever have listened to sports radio if they think mansplaining only happens to them.

      1. Shut the fuck up up, Himmler. Men are talking.

    5. Best comment for my money: “Excellent post! My only qualm is the casual equation of having a penis with being a man. There are plenty of women who have penises and men who do not, and the genitalia-as-gender mentality that is so pervasive in our language and culture erases these people.”

  9. “Go’way! Batin!”

    Graph Depicting When Firefox’s ‘Private Mode’ Is Activated.

    1. Jesus, how do these people get away with wanking at lunchtime?

      1. Offices, not cubicles?

      2. We don’t know how many of these were government addresses.

      3. That really is my question too. It just has never crossed my mind to flog the bishop at work.

        1. The graph doesn’t show where they go. Lots of people do legitimately private online work during their breaks and just before checking out for the day. Activating the private browsing mode doesn’t mean you’re looking at porn, but the graph does make for a humorous divertisment.

    2. Only for 10 minutes though?!

      1. Is the lunchtime office whack really the time to get elaborate?

    3. Are people so stupid to not realize that “Private Mode” only affects your machine? If you’re going off to sites that you’re not supposed to hit, it still has to go through your company’s network and through their routers. The next user on your machine may not know, but the IT guys sure as hell will.

  10. No mention of the latest installment of Real Estate Armageddon? You know, the part nobody, and I mean NOBODY, saw coming?

  11. State AGs pressuring craigslist to drop adult services section…

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/…..0668.story

    1. Somebody needs to find something for state AGs to do that doesn’t rape freedom. Maybe a bi-weekly pick up b-ball game?

      1. How about going after police brutality claims in their states?

        HA ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. AH Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

  12. I was listening to the news on the way into work today and noticed this sort of reporting with regards to the now undetectable BP oil plume.

    All of the facts are favorable to the idea that the oil spill was not apocalyptic, surrounded by a green coating of enviro-pessimist wishful hating.

  13. Tom Friedman goes to the movies, learns about education.

    Guggenheim kicks off the film explaining that he was all for sending kids to their local public schools until “it was time to choose a school for my own children, and then reality set in. My feelings about public education didn’t matter as much as my fear of sending them to a failing school. And so every morning, betraying the ideals I thought I lived by, I drive past three public schools as I take my kids to a private school. But I’m lucky. I have a choice. Other families pin their hopes to a bouncing ball, a hand pulling a card from a box or a computer that generates numbers in random sequence. Because when there’s a great public school there aren’t enough spaces, and so we do what’s fair. We place our children and their future in the hands of luck.”

    “We do what’s fair.”
    That’s not what “fair” means, you stupid twat.

  14. Time to panic!

    New York’s City Council is poised to make one of the most important decisions in years about Manhattan’s skyline. Council members will decide today whether to allow developers to build a skyscraper almost as tall as the Empire State Building ? 900 feet west on the site of the current Hotel Pennsylvania, on Seventh Avenue. For many people looking from the western part of Manhattan and New Jersey, the iconic tower would no longer be visible.

    This is no ordinary development issue. The Empire State is central to this city’s image. Any decision to alter the skyline so radically deserves more time and more public consideration.

    1. The developers just need to make the bottom floors of the building a mosque. That will shut up the usual suspects from complaining.

    2. There’s few groups I despise more than preservationists. They’re complaining about big condo buildings being built in central Houston because it’s “ruining” old neighborhoods – which are full of poorly-built catalog houses from the 1930s.

      1. Catalog houses from the 30s kick ass. And some things are worth preserving. I would take Penn Station over Madison Square Garden anytime. Further, sometimes the preservationists are all that stand between some sleaze bag developer and their bought and paid for city council and land owners.

        1. Maybe. If they want to get together and pay market price or win a bidding war for the sites they wish preserved, I have no problem. Bullshit historical districts and other gerrymandered special zoning areas are not in keeping with property rights.

          1. Only if they change the rules while you own the property. If you know that when you buy a place it is restricted, you essentially are not buying that part of the property rights and price accordingly. Also, a “historic district” can raise everyone’s property values by keeping the neighborhood in tact and creating a valuable neighborhood people want to live in.

            If you live in a nice neighborhood that is really livable and three blocks down some jackass builds a 40 story condo building that clogs traffic and reduces the quality of life, your property value is going down.

            1. So, the people who would move into the condo aren’t “people” for the purposes of “people want to live in [a neighborhood]”?

              The reason the condos go in is the property is more not less valuable used that way. That’s the process that creates high density urban housing without some functionary directing it.

              The “high value” of historical district homes is, in fact, lower than the market rate in the absence of the regulation, and as such constitutes a government subsidy for the residents.

              If you can’t tolerate living near the condo, sell your property to the next condo developer (who wants it badly enough to make you handsome profit) and move out to where single family homes are economical.

              1. You can only build so many condos. Basically the first guy who is lucky enough to sell makes all the money. And everyone else is screwed.

                As long as you know the rules up front when you buy the property, you have no right to complain. If you dream of selling your house to a condo developer, don’t buy in a historic district.

                1. John, every single historical district was not a historical district at some point.

                  Someone got screwed.

                  And that is morally indefensible.

              2. …hmmm…should clarify the “government subsidy” line.

                It constitutes a government interference that manifest is several ways:

                * Property taxes based on the valuation are lower than they would be in the absence of the regulation
                * People buying in receive a subsidy on the purchase price
                * People who owned property in the affect area at the time of the declaration have some value stolen from them

                Make what you will on that in terms of social justice.

            2. John, you just really “defined down” a nuisance use of a property.

              You no longer believe in capitalism or private property, on the basis of this new definition of yours. You are a socialist fuck.

              You’ve gone from “The smells from a pig farm could make my next-door property uninhabitable” to “If you build condos down the street there will be more people around, and I don’t like that.”

              And you’re doing it in defense of people who don’t want one skyscraper built because it might keep people miles away from being able to see a different skyscraper.

              Are you fucking even listening to yourself any more?

              1. First fluffy you are so easy to bait. No where here did I ever say they shouldn’t build the building in question. It is Manhattan for God’s sake a sky scraper doesn’t exactly change the neighborhood. You just assume I said I didn’t want it built because you are so easy to bait into saying crazy shit. No, blocking the view of the Empire State Building is not a good reason to stop this.

                As far as historic districts, if they government comes from above and creates them, then yes that is wrong. But if the people in the neighborhood and voluntarily create a covenant amongst each other, then that is perfectly fine. Everyone agrees to it and the future people who buy in know what they are buying. Granted that is not how a lot of such districts work. But it is how they should work. And indeed in most places, people who buy in those sorts of neighborhoods would do it voluntarily. But if one guy holds out, he can hold out.

                If you have a problem with that, you are the statist. Freedom means the freedom to associate and contract. It doesn’t mean radical individualism enforced from above. People have a right to form civic unions and institutions. Since you believe in state mandated and coerced individualism, you often forget that.

      2. FWIW, I own two different editions of Montgomery Ward house catalogues from the 1920s.I used to collect crap like that.

      3. Do they get any coverage outside the alternative weekly magazines? If so, H-town has gone to hell since I left in the early ’00s.

        1. Near Rice there are lots of yard signs depicting a high-rise with big evil /\/\/\/\/\/\ teeth gobbling up small houses because of a proposal to build a condo building there.

    3. “”This is no ordinary development issue. The Empire State is central to this city’s image. Any decision to alter the skyline so radically deserves more time and more public consideration.””

      The Manhattan skyline has changed a lot in the 20 years I’ve lived here.

    1. I have my reservations, but I’m cautiously optimistic about this. I just hope there’s no heavyhanded Romero-style social messages.

      Also, the dead cat at the beginning of the clip looks like my orange polydactyl. Warty iz sad.

      1. If you read the comic series, then what Carl did to Ben must’ve made you very happy. I know it made me happy.

        1. I didn’t. What happened?

          1. Ben was a little kid who flipped out and killed & mutilated a poor little kitty, and eventually did the same thing to his twin brother. The group, not knowing what do with him (they didn’t want to kill a little boy), locked him in back of a van. Carl (Rick’s little boy) snuck into the van one night while everyone was sleeping and blew his brains out.

            1. It amuses me that the kitty mutilation bothers me much more than the human mutilation.

              1. You should join PETA.

            2. “Carl (Rick’s little boy) snuck into the van one night while everyone was sleeping and blew his brains out.”

              That sounds kind of gay to me. My mother…Judy Garland…would think so too.

      2. Land of the Dead was the first time Romero was so obvious with his “message” that it diminished the movie for me. Of course, the movie was basically idiotic and nonsensical, making me wonder if Romero was aware of the year he was filming in. The only reason to see it was the well done pointless violence.

        1. I enjoyed it tremendously, because I always like seeing Pittsburgh destroyed. I prefer my zombie movies less preachy, though. It’s a shame, because no one does zombies as well as Romero, but he insists on ruining them with pointless social commentary.

          I didn’t bother to see Diary, though, because it seemed likely to be total shit. Was it?

          1. I didn’t bother to see Diary, though, because it seemed likely to be total shit. Was it?

            I don’t know. I missed it for the same reason.

          2. Were you touched inappropriately as a child, perhaps by a trusted yinzer authority figure?

            1. I would never trust a yinzer, especially not the ones in my extended family.

              Do you scold people this much in real life? One of these days, one of them is gonna worsh yer mahth aht with sim soap er sumpin’.

              1. At least people talk about zombies constantly here in Pittsburgh. That’s one thing the place has going for it.

        2. The social commentary in Land of the Dead would have been fine, despite the fact that I disagreed with all of it, if it weren’t for the fact that to make that commentary Romero had to wedge in lots of nonsensical plot points.

          The bottom line was that the minisociety he set up made no sense on its own terms, and that both hilighted his hamhandedness and made watching the film one big eye roll for me.

          1. The social commentary might have had some relevance 20 years ago – maybe. Today, I thought it was a non-sequitir.

            The bottom line was that the minisociety he set up made no sense on its own terms…

            Exactly. A society set up to deliberately stratify itself on racial / class boundaries, in the face of a huge external threat to its existence, is idiotic. It would have been destroyed long before the time the movie was set in.

      3. Do not fear, at least the Walking Dead comic doesn’t have any kind of underlying social mesage.

        Though I always liked the heavy handed social messages in Romero’s movies (even when I disagreed).

  15. The Government’s New Right to Track Your Every Move With GPS

    Government agents can sneak onto your property in the middle of the night, put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of everywhere you go. This doesn’t violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway – and no reasonable expectation that the government isn’t tracking your movements.

    That is the bizarre – and scary – rule that now applies in California and eight other Western states. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers this vast jurisdiction, recently decided the government can monitor you in this way virtually anytime it wants – with no need for a search warrant.

    The author tries to oppose the ruling on the basis of privacy rights, but I think that holds water. There is no expectation of privacy when driving on public roads.

    To me, the constitutional problem with this practice is that attaching the GPS device to one’s vehicle constitutes a seizure of property. Just because your driveway may be open to delivery people and such, they certainly don’t have a right to make unauthorized modifications to your vehicle while in your driveway (or parked on the street, for that matter).

    Of course, the snowball fight supporters on H&R are going to have a hard time agreeing with that position, since they famously opined that it’s every citizen’s right to throw things at other citizens’ property (and person) so long as it doesn’t cause any lasting damage. So I guess Fluffy et al. think that attaching a GPS to someone’s vehicle doesn’t violate their property rights.

    1. …I don’t think [the privacy argument] holds water…

    2. Furthermore, for all the author’s huffing and puffing about how this privileges the wealthy (who have gated properties which can exclude govt agents) over the poor who can’t afford such enforced privacy, he doesn’t address the fact that many poor don’t even have driveway access…they park in the street, where the “driveway is private” argument won’t protect them.

      My argument, on the other hand, protects all property owners regardless of their ability to afford private enforcement of those property rights.

  16. But if the people in the neighborhood and voluntarily create a covenant amongst each other, then that is perfectly fine. Everyone agrees to it and the future people who buy in know what they are buying.

    But what happens when some evildoer vandalizes your little communitarian paradise by building something icky right outside the gates? The victims will be forced to board up their windows. Surely this cannot be tolerated.

    1. If it is outside the covenant, then there is nothing you can do about it. But what do you care? You have your neighborhood so who cares? That is how things should work. Society builds its own civic institutions and people chose where to live accordingly. But you guys hate that. We must have police enforced freedom at all times.

  17. You have your neighborhood so who cares?

    How is this different than, “You have your house, so who cares?”

    1. A neighborhood is bigger than a house. Why can’t you and your neighbors get together and form a binding contract where you all agree not to do something?

      And if you don’t I think I should be able to do that and enter into voluntary compacts with my neighbors, how do plan to stop me if not by going and whining to the government to get them not to enforce our contract? That is police mandated individualism.

  18. We must have police enforced freedom at all times.

    What the fuck does that even mean?

    1. John is pretending that his Historical-District-By-Contract entities are common (Is there even an example to point to? All the ones I’m familiar with exist by government fiat.), and that someone around here has objected to them (though I haven’t seen that), and attempting to paint every libertarian as a bad person because of that.

      In other words, John doesn’t have an actual argument.

      1. Actually, I think the point that John was making is that having a ‘historical district’ is not necessarily anti-libertarian, however a government enforced ‘historical district’ would be.

        Pretty simple point I thought.

        He is also pointing out that many here would seem to prefer state intervention in order to protect individualism, where from a libertarian standpoint there should be no state intervention, and individuals should have the right to make mutual agreements and contracts.

        Again, its a fairly straightforward point.

        1. John was making is that having a ‘historical district’ is not necessarily anti-libertarian

          Yes, John has constructed a hypothetical that no one here has argued against. Got that.

          He is also pointing out that many here would seem to prefer state intervention in order to protect individualism, where from a libertarian standpoint there should be no state intervention, and individuals should have the right to make mutual agreements and contracts.

          He pointed it out? Where, precisely, did he find people expressing that opinion? Which commentators said that (word for word isn’t necessary, just a good match on the opinion)?

          John has—in fact—ever so forcefully engaged a strawman, and we are all awed by his victory.

          Really.

    2. Freedom is slavery

  19. Why can’t you and your neighbors get together and form a binding contract where you all agree not to do something?

    You and your neighbors may do so. I have no objection. I object when that organization claims some bogus “stakeholder” status in order to claim the power to dictate to persons outside their contract.

    And I strenuously object when the fucking landgrabbers at the New York Times set themselves up as the arbiters of architectural taste and protectors of some airy-fairy communal skyline aesthetic.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.