Reason Morning Links: War, Cholera, and Star Whackers

|

Advertisement

NEXT: Free Speech for Zombies

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. “A new poll by FTI Consulting shows that a small majority of the business community ? 53 percent ? would want new Republican majorities in Congress to find compromise with the White House rather than repeal the Democrats’ major initiatives, such as the healthcare and financial services reform bills. ”

    A new poll by FTI Consulting shows that a small majority of the business community of those polled ? 53 percent ? would want new Republican majorities….

    1. The poll’s results are drawn from an online survey of 400 American investors, financial advisors and small-business owners.

      Hm, this sounds reliable.

      I don’t doubt that there are businesses that just want to see some continuity going forward, but seriously, a small online poll? I’m not even going to pretend that’s representative.

      1. There’s a lot of serious polling done online these days — it’s not all self-selected junk. (Not that I know anything about the quality of this firm’s work.)

        1. You skew the results of an online poll because everyone who answers it actually chooses to answer it by clicking a link. Phone polls are different since every # you don’t recognize on called id isn’t a pollster. You answer to see who it is. With online polls, you actively pursue taking a poll.

          Perhaps online polls are a better gauge of “engaged” business owners in this case, but are certainly less accurate than randomly selected telephone polls would be. The problem is getting the business owners through traditional polling methods. More often than not, you’ll get a gatekeeper.

          1. Regardless, a mere 400 participants is nothing.

            1. Especially when you compare that 400 number to the 2,850,000 new business owners since Obama took over the WH.

            2. a mere 400 participants is nothing.

              If done correctly (which is the actual hard part) 400 randomly selected participants is more than enough to get less than a 5% sampling error at the 95% confidence interval* for any population over 100K (4.9% @ 1M or 1000M)

              http://www.dssresearch.com/toolkit/secalc/error.asp

              *note that the two numbers (5 & 95) adding to 100% is a conidence and artifact of these particular numbers being chosen

              1. Or what Kolohe said.

    2. 1) 400 is more than likely not an insignificant sample size for a probability sample with respect to US businesses.

      2) This is why you don’t use the interwebs for polling. From Pew,

      Why don’t you just conduct surveys on your website?

      Good question. Or, more generally, why don’t we conduct our polls on the internet, or trust internet polls? It would certainly be less expensive. But polls conducted among people on the internet would not be valid for generalizing to the general population because of two obvious problems: not everyone has internet access (at least 25% of the public does not), and people available and willing to take a poll on the internet do not constitute a representative sample of the public. See Internet surveys for more information on conducting surveys on the web.

      A good example of the problems with internet polling is described in this 1999 analysis from the height of the controversy over President Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky:

      Online Polling Offer Mixed Results January 27, 1999

  2. And no, this story has nothing to do w/ my infrequent posting lately.

    Cops bust Colquitt County man for allegedly having sex with a dog
    …faces charges of bestiality and burglary

    1. On the Internet, no one knows your lover is a dog.

      1. Once you go Black Lab, you never go back.

        1. Raaaacist?

        2. Once you go retriever,
          you’re a dog-fucking believer?

    2. So Santorum was right…It begins.

    3. That bitch wanted it.

      1. Once you go corgi,
        you’ll have a dog-pound orgy?

    4. Don’t miss the comments…

      Big Dick Jeff said: Friday, October 22, 2010
      YEAH!! This is Hot!! Really makes me hard! I need to do it to a Dog ASAP!! I bet he really beat up that doggy butt. Love to feel the Dog poop on my hard ****! MMM! Let this be a lesson. When you need to pump a puppy’s butt, carry a Weapon to protect your self from the Nazi’s at all time!!

      1. Once you go dingo,
        your dick will drum like Ringo?

      2. Big Dick Jeff? I thought your name was Jay?

    5. Bestiality isn’t a choice – it’s a genetic predisposition.

      1. Once you go beagle,
        your dick will soar like an eagle?

    6. Once you go schnauzer,
      you’ll only wanna pound her.

    1. In recent months, [J. Christian] Adams and a Justice Department colleague have said the case was dismissed because the department is reluctant to pursue cases against minorities accused of violating the voting rights of whites. Three other Justice Department lawyers, in recent interviews, gave the same description of the department’s culture, which department officials strongly deny.

      That’s because the department prays to the god of victimology.

      1. If the problem is discrimination then the obvious solution is reverse-discrimination. DUH!

  3. They results of the “business community” poll aren’t surprising. I’m sure 100% of “business leaders” from the biggest companies in the financial, insurance, and pharmaceutical industries are quite happy with what their money has bought them.

    1. Agree. “Protection money” goes a long way on K Street.

      I’d rather the mafia not be around in the first place, but if they’re going to be hassling people I’d rather it be my competitors and not me.

      1. As the McDonalds case shows, if the big dogs don’t like some part of the law, they can get one of those convienent little waivers from the UbermedizinischeKontrolle-Todschiedskommissionaire Sebelius.

        Of course if you aren’t one of the megacorps, and you don’t follow the law and regs to the letter, she’ll send her storm troopers to crush your little pop stand.

  4. Cholera hits Haiti.

    Surprise, surprise, surprise!

  5. Teenagers who trick-or-treat in some cities could face something more threatening than any costumed zombie or ghost ? like the long arm of the law.

    That’s OK. I’m mostly in it for the vandalism anyway.

  6. Oh, those wacky Quaids. Where to begin…

  7. I’ve always wished that trick-or-treating was more popular with adults, actually…

    1. War brings development faster than the private sector could alone. We take for granted the roads we walk on today but our road systems trace their origins to troop transportation.

      Actually, it might be most precise to say that war brings developments earlier and more comprehensively than voluntary private-sector investment would have brought it. But that often the failure to invest is just as important as successful investment.

      The road system is a great example of that. It is quite true that our state road system is much more extensive, and of a different character, than a privately-developed road system would be or would have been. But the question of whether or not that’s a good thing or not is an open one. If ultimately the “American style” low density development that’s being copied around the world turns out to be an economic, environmental and demographic disaster, does that count as a “win” for government technology, or a loss?

      1. War, especially losing one, breaks down existing relationships and the advantages of insiders. That open things up for better development in the long run. That is the premise of Mancur Olson’s great book “The Rise and Fall of Nations”. The better way is to kick the insiders out via elections or the market. No one wants a war much less to lose one. The lessons of societies that have lost wars and the economic growth that followed should not be ignored.

        1. We are used to wars fought on other people’s soil. We haven’t (or shouldn’t have) had to worry about the costs of rebuilding after a war since 1815.

          1. Unless you live in the South in which case it was 1865. And Olson lays out a very good case showing how the breakdown of Southern society and its aristocracy allowed it to a century later surpass the North economically.

            1. Or Manhattan in 2001.

              1. Since we’re talking about the costs or rebuilding instead of the actual rebuilding, then I’d agree with you.

                Anyone else wonder how long it would have taken us to rebuild the WTC (or the equivalent property of the time) if it would have happened 100 years ago? My guess is a couple of years at the most.

                1. Fuck 100 years ago, just make it private property. No one would sit idol on that dirt given its value even a fucking porta potty on that site would turn an awesome profit.

                  1. I was referring as much to the regulation and red tape you have to cut through. As the current owners of a Burlington Coat Factory building in Manhattan would tell you…private ownership doesn’t mean shit gets done on your own schedule in NYC.

                    1. I agree. But doesn’t the port authority own the WTC site?

                      (FYI the initial post wasn’t a bash towards you, just the general level of frustration over stupid government shit)

      2. American style low density development has been a disaster.

        A ruinous one.

        What fool would argue in favor of building more roads? Bringing up the horror that is the federal highway network is my number one conversion tool on leftists.

        Oh, and a bone for us: blah blah blah,price falsification, and etc.

    2. So roads were “invented” by government for the purpose of moving troops around. Thanks for that.

      1. You can thank me by paying your taxes.

        1. Actually I’m one of those people who your tax dollars are redistributed to.

            1. Mostly due to tax credits like EIC and whatever the child tax credit is called. (My income should be a lot higher in a few years and I’ll be a net tax payer then).

              1. Okay. Sounds good.

              2. awwwwwwkward…

              3. Can I borrow $20 of my money? I’m a lil short for lunch today.

      2. You’re welcome “The military has driven technology as far back as the Roman Empire. The Roman road system, for example, was originally built for troop transport, but civilians were the ultimate beneficiaries. The same could be said about Eisenhower’s interstate highway system, designed during the cold war.” http://www.csmonitor.com/Innov…..-peacetime

        http://www.ask.com/wiki/Roman_roads?qsrc=3044

        1. civilians were the ultimate beneficiaries

          That’s very questionable.

          Conditions of life for the average resident of the Mediterranean basin were probably better before the rise of the Roman superstate.

          For just about everyone outside of a small number of Roman patricians and equestrians, the rise of Rome meant slavery, expropriation, ruinous taxation, humiliation, and cultural stagnation.

          1. That is very debatable. The rise of the Roman superstate also meant stability and hundreds of years of peace for most of the Mediterranean as well. If things were so bad for the populace of the Roman state, why did the northern European tribes all want to migrate to Gaul and become Romans? I think your picture, while certainly containing some truth, is far too simple to be accurate.

            1. If b y hundreds of years of peace, you really meant hundreds of years of continuous war, local coercion by the military, and very high taxes as “protection money”, than yes.

              1. Bullshit. You confuse the good periods of the first and second centuries with the bad periods of the third and fifth. You cannot run and empire that large and for that long of a period unless a lot of people benefited from its existence. And your point doesn’t even begin to respond to my point that if life under Roman rule was that bad, why did so many people flock to be under it? And why during the height, were there not more revolts? The Jews were the only ones who revolted and they did that for religious reasons.

                Yes, life was hard and unjust by today’s standards. But they were not living by today’s standards. Compared to the alternative of chaos and tribalism Roman rule was the better alternative.

                1. I’m guessing that many people went for Roman citizenship because it conferred benefits. And the lack of revolt hardly proves a benign empire, there were no major revolts against Stalin either.

                  1. The Roman empire didn’t have the technology Stalin had. It is very difficult to control an empire that large in the days before effective transport or instant communications. And if were possible to control that large of an empire though brute force alone, at least some other empires of the time would have also been as long lasting or as large.

                    And yes, being a Roman citizen did confer benefits. That is my point. That is why people liked being in the empire. And there were lots of places that were not ruled by the empire, Norther Europe and Scotland for example. And those places were much more brutal for the average person than the Roman Empire even with its taxation and oppression.

                    1. “And yes, being a Roman citizen did confer benefits. That is my point. That is why people liked being in the empire.”

                      The second point doesn’t follow from the first John. Being a member of the Nazi party conferred benefits in Germany when they were in power. That doesn’t mean the fact people applied for it demonstrates the regimes benign nature.

                    2. I am not saying the “regime was benign” whatever that means. I am saying living under Roman rule was almost always better than the alternative. And the proof of that is in the migration patterns. Few people if anyone migrated out of the Roman empire, but plenty migrated in.

                2. John,

                  I’ve been through the whole gamut of reactions to the Roman state.

                  Maybe I’ll cycle out of my revisionism and be an enthusiast again. But I doubt it.

                  There were large numbers of revolts and usurpations during the period of empire. In fact, the striking thing when you really start to dig into the history is that the empire didn’t fracture much earlier. The Palmyra rebellion really should have succeeded and destroyed the empire well ahead of the actual historical schedule, and it could easily have gone the other way.

                  The lack of successful and enduring internal revolts was partially due to the economic and social degradation that had been imposed on the extra-Italian sections of the empire. The North Korean population doesn’t rebel, either.

                  The various tribal migrations into the Med basin repeated a pattern that had been ongoing since the Bronze Age. I don’t think we can characterize the migrations of the 4th and 5th centuries as motivated by a desire to be ruled by Rome. The Goths were perfectly happy where they were until the Huns showed up on their other flank.

                  The Roman state has been popular with historians for a pretty simple reason: they built large public works and monuments in stone, and historians and archaeologists have a hard-on for large stone ruins. But that bias towards large, powerful, “showy” and monument-building states is not exactly a noble impulse. You would decry similar sentiments in modern people.

                  At the granular level at which life is actually lived [i.e. not where the monuments are] the rise of Rome was a catastrophe for most people. Caesar probably killed or enslaved half the population of Gaul, in the best known example. The populations of Carthage and Corinth were utterly exterminated. And the set of social relationships the Romans imposed in their wake were usually a distinct step down for most people. The Roman institution of slavery, for example, had more in common with the destructive labor camps of the Soviets and Nazis than it had in common with the [relatively] benign and small-scale local institutions it replaced. The Roman state devoured its own population with taxes and slavery so much that by the end in the west, the ruling class effectively had to enslave itself, by compelling upper class citizens at sword point to accept expensive and debilitating public offices no one wanted to hold any longer.

                  1. Fluffy,

                    Life was by our standards a catastrophe for most people in the world during Roman times. I am not arguing that life was good for the average person, it wasn’t. But, it was clearly better during the good times than it was after Rome fell. Before Rome tore itself apart via civil wars, people under its rule at least lived without the scourge of war. Without Rome, they just as oppressed and taxed by their new masters as they were under Rome, but they didn’t even get the stability and protection of the Roman army.

                    And comparing it to North Korea is just silly. The Roman empire is so far removed from our times and experience, it cannot profitably be compared to any modern state.

                    1. But, it was clearly better during the good times than it was after Rome fell. Before Rome tore itself apart via civil wars, people under its rule at least lived without the scourge of war. Without Rome, they just as oppressed and taxed by their new masters as they were under Rome, but they didn’t even get the stability and protection of the Roman army.

                      This actually doesn’t stand up to historical scrutiny.

                      The period immediately following the fall of the western Roman empire was actually a period of economic and technological advance. In fact, one major reason for the western empire’s fall was that just about nobody wanted the empire back; after preceding crises, the Roman state would reassert itself, but by the late 5th century it had finally become so parasitic and abusive that a general retreat into local rule advantaged many groups, and not just the new barbarian landlord class.

                      The “Dark Ages”, such as they were, really weren’t that dark, and when a general economic and cultural decline did finally set in they were more a function of the fact that Justinian destroyed half of Spain and all of Italy and North Africa and then left his successors too weak to hold them. The Gotho-Roman successor states had been doing OK up to that point.

                      The problem with the argument “But the Pax Romana brought peace” is that the historians who argue this always fail to employ it in other contexts. The Persian conquests brought “peace” and a large state capable of vast public works, too, and the Greek city-states were perpetually at war with each other – but there are few historians out there saying, “You know, Greece would have been better off getting conquered by Persia!”

                    2. I am familiar with that alternative history and that is just bunk. The archeological evidence of what life was actually like in Merovinian Gaul is pretty scant. What great technological advances? There is very little real evidence of that. What you are describing is the backlash that has occured agains the Carolingian sources. Yes, the Carolinigians bad mouthed their predecessors as “the Dark Ages”. And a lot of that was propaganda. But that doesn’t mean the historians you are listening to claim it to mean. The Dark Ages were hardly some kind of blooming of technology and freedom.

                    3. What great technological advances?

                      Medieval agriculture was an advance on Roman agriculture in just about every way.

                      In land use and crop rotation, use of animal, water and wind power, and general agricultural management, the dark ages were a period of advance on centuries of Roman stagnation. What’s often forgotten is that the population of western Europe steadily dropped under the empire and began rising again once the empire fell. That can’t happen unless there are accompanying economic and technological advances.

                      In other areas, like weaving, glass-making, mining, weapons manufacture, etc., medieval techniques steadily improved on Roman models that had stood stagnant and still for centuries.

                      One thing that empire enthusiasts overlook is that one reason no new empire rose up to take the fallen one’s place is because advances in weapons design and tactics made local forces more efficient than large centrally-maintained forces. It was no longer possible to steamroll over western Europe and conquer everything not because Europe was weaker, but because it was stronger.

                    4. All of those advances came later. Those were not advances that occurred in late antiquity. Those are advances that came after 1000 AD.

                      Yes, lots of Roman technology was improved during the “high middle ages”. But that is not the time period we are talking about. The archealogical evidence, what there is of it, of the immediate post Roman period shows a drastic decrease in the size of homes, food production and general well being. Yes eventually things did recover. But that doesn’t disprove my point that things got worse when the empire ended.

                    5. Interesting discussion, John and Fluffy. One point: I’ve read that at the end of the Roman Empire, many citizens didn’t mind the barbarians coming in, because it meant they didn’t have to pay high Roman taxes.

                    6. That is true PapayaSF. But remember the barbarians didn’t come in until the Roman Empire had debased its currency and taxes every last drop out of the peasantry to fund its civil wars. Yeah the barbarians were better. But that is because the Romans had gotten so bad not because the Empire was never any good.

                    7. John, it sounds like you’re just arguing peace through strength. Where have I heard that before?

          2. It also gave them a place to hang their collection of Spartacus impersonators.

          3. “Your death will stand as a landmark in the continuing struggle to liberate the parent land from the hands of the Roman imperialist aggressors, excluding those concerned with drainage, medicine, roads, housing, education, viniculture and any other Romans contributing to the welfare of Jews of both sexes and hermaphrodites…”

            1. “See? Not so bad, once you’re up.”

        2. My problem is with you saying “government is the mother of invention” and then pointing to roads as an example. Fucking deer create paths through the woods.

          1. A path and a road are two different things. Kinda like a clit, and a dick. Except paths are just for fun too.

          2. “”My problem is with you saying “government is the mother of invention” and then pointing to roads as an example.

            The Internet, various types of lasers, the computer. Lets see a deer invent that stuff.

            1. I’m all for a deer armed with a laser and a built in web cam.

              Could we also bioengineer in a small refrigerated bladder full of acorn beer so that the successful hunter can slake his thirst?

              1. Sucking deer dick for beer is not my idea of fun.

        3. Re: rctl,

          The Roman road system, for example, was originally built for troop transport, but civilians were the ultimate beneficiaries.

          That’s because they did not pay for them, the looted Gauls and Celts did.

          The same could be said about Eisenhower’s interstate highway system, designed during the cold war.”

          This is a highly questionable assertion, as road travel is MORE expensive, in terms of fuel and wear and tear, than rail travel, even TODAY, especially for goods.

          1. OM, people put their money where their mouth is by purchasing automobiles, forgoing public transportation, and by choosing to work miles away from their residences.

            Is public transportation cheaper? Hell ya, but driving on our government developed and maintained road systems is what the majority has chosen.

            1. Has chosen based on false prices. If there were a time machine that could obviate gov’t tinkering in the market, I a am convinced we’d see very little of the suburbanized USA.

            2. Re: rctlfy,

              OM, people put their money where their mouth is by purchasing automobiles, forgoing public transportation, and by choosing to work miles away from their residences.

              First, READ my POST: I said rail is more efficient to move GOODS.

              Besides this: How do YOU know it’s not the other way around? How do YOU know people were not simply enticed by these huge pharaonic projects to (precisely) live outside the city and commute?

              Last, people were buying cars BEFORE these huge projects, not precisely to go zipping through state lines at 75 MPH. Whatever people do FREELY is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS and definitely NOT CAUSE for a loot-financed project.

              Is public transportation cheaper? Hell ya, but driving on our government developed and maintained road systems is what the majority has chosen.

              You have an interesting take on the meaning of the word “choice.”

              I guess that they “choose” to have their money taken by threat of force by the government so it could spend it in wrapping the countryside with tarmac ribbons… Sure, that’s choice.

              1. Sorry, “chose”, not “choose”, in the last paragraph.

              2. Re: rctlfy,

                First, READ my POST: I said rail is more efficient to move GOODS.

                I owe you an apology. I did write “especially for goods” instead of indicating for goods only.

              3. “I said rail is more efficient to move GOODS.”
                Yes, I noticed you failed to understand my original statement that roads were created by government to move troops. Yes supplies were included but men came first, and later heavier and more sophisticated equipment that required roads.

                “How do YOU know it’s not the other way around? How do YOU know people were not simply enticed by these huge pharaonic projects to (precisely) live outside the city and commute? Last, people were buying cars BEFORE these huge projects, not precisely to go zipping through state lines at 75 MPH. ”
                LOL, are you actually arguing that people move away from the convenience of their work or homes to travel great distances because of a primal need to drive on roads? I think I’ll call that OM’s Vroom Vroom argument 😉

                The “loot-financed project” argument is DOA too. The public still top this day votes on improving and constructing new road systems. Now that’s a choice!

                1. I can vouch for the primal need to drive FAST on smooth, immaculate ribbons over, around, and through any obstacle. VROOM. Automatic transmissions should be illegal, that would make the VROOM better.

                2. Re: rctfly,

                  LOL, are you actually arguing that people move away from the convenience of their work or homes to travel great distances because of a primal need to drive on roads?

                  Nice strawman. By the way, enticement comes not from roads only . . . Property taxes, anyone???

                  The “loot-financed project” argument is DOA too. The public still top this day votes on improving and constructing new road systems. Now that’s a choice!

                  The “argument from majority”, a.k.a. Might is Right. So, you think that because people “vote” for it, must be all right? Democracy, after all, is wolves voting with the sheep on what to have for dinner.

                  I don’t make those kinds of arguments, rctfly – I leave the utilitarian and democracy arguments to tyrants and thieves.

          2. Did somebody say rail travel?

            fapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfap

          3. Ah, but not everyone lives near a train station. You still need roads to get to your final destination, so I suspect roads win out overall.

        4. Roman civilians, the ones they were building roads to conquer didn’t always fair so well.

      3. So roads were “invented” by government for the purpose of moving troops around. Thanks for that.

        Not so snarky as you think. The original road network was built by the Roman Legions, for the Roman Legions.

        1. The original road network was built by the Roman Legions, for the Roman Legions.

          Stone-paved streets are found in the city of Ur in the Middle East dating back to 4000 BC.[2]
          Corduroy roads (log roads) are found dating to 4,000 BC in Glastonbury, England.[2]
          The timber trackway; Sweet Track causeway in England, is one of the oldest engineered roads discovered and the oldest timber trackway discovered in Northern Europe. Built in winter 3807 BC or spring 3806 BC, tree-ring dating (Dendrochronology) enabled very precise dating. It has been claimed to be the oldest road in the world.[11][12]
          Brick-paved streets were used in India as early as 3000 BC.[2]
          In 500 BC, Darius I the Great started an extensive road system for Persia (Iran), including the famous Royal Road which was one of the finest highways of its time.[13] The road remained in use after Roman times.

          Original roads? Maybe the Romans expanded on the idea, but it was hardly an original concept.

          1. Don’t forget King Solomon’s Road in Kukuanaland.

          2. Note the term “networks”. One road is not a network.

            1. I’d have to say stone paved streets constitute a network.
              Brick paved streets in India would certainly count as a network.

              I’m just pointing out that roads and road networks, however loosely organized, more often came from a need for commerce as opposed to from a need to transport warfare.

              Also, most roads developed from pathways as a means to speed commerce and weren’t government projects. Once the cart was developed, commerce tended to be spread more quickly and more often than warfare.

    3. Someone needs to read their Bastiat.

      1. Seriously. Ugh.

    4. Re: rctl,

      War brings development faster than the private sector could alone. We take for granted the roads we walk on today but our road systems trace their origins to troop transportation.

      Just as rape and hareems can bring the population level a lot faster than dating and marrying can achieve.

      So we have yet ANOTHER iteration of the Broken Windows Fallacy – good one, rctl!

      1. OM, welcome to Texas. Rape and harems are illegal here but we do pull some funny shit on you “California tourists”

        Comparing legal enterprises of the government and unlawful activity of males is not the same. Good luck with that argument.

        1. Re: rctlfy,

          OM, welcome to Texas. Rape and harems are illegal here but we do pull some funny shit on you “California tourists”

          I live in Texas. The “funny shit” I left behind in Calif.

          Comparing legal enterprises of the government and unlawful activity of males is not the same. Good luck with that argument.

          Good luck with your question-begging counterarguments. I am not comparing “legal” with “illegal”, as these are meaningless terms (it is the government that determines what is “legal,” so the dice are loaded in that regard.)

          What I am comparing is the utter IMMORALITY of your assertion, rctfly. JUST BECAUSE governtment did it first and quickly does not mean it was GOOD, especially when government does not PAY FOR IT – YOU AND I DO. With money stolen from us . . . which the government by the way says it’s legal to do so – imagine that!

          I do not subscribe to utilitarianist notions.

          1. “I am not comparing “legal” with “illegal”, as these are meaningless terms (it is the government that determines what is “legal,” so the dice are loaded in that regard.)”
            LOL, OM you are so out of practice-you used to be a challenge!

            “JUST BECAUSE government did it first and quickly does not mean it was GOOD” Really, and if private enterprise succeeds first, does it automagically make it better?

            This is one big country and if you want to avoid taxation, live in the wilderness. Don’t use the roads, hospitals, schools et al. Move, or continue to vote your convictions.

            If you are right in your assertions that all taxation is theft, then ultimately people will agree. You will then have your wilderness here, and I’ll move to a cabin on a lake.

            1. Thanks for mentioning me on your blog, dipshit.

              For those that don’t want to click (and you shouldn’t feed the troll anyway), despite the fact that my handle already has a site-specific definition, apparently I am now to be the term for blogwhoring at Hit and Run.

              Maybe you should start jumping up and down and waving your hands, trolly. Or perhaps threaten to hold your breath until we pay attention.

              1. apparently I am now to be the term for blogwhoring at Hit and Run.

                Too late. You are already the term for linkbotching. Can’t be both. In fact, they’re kind of mutually exclusive, if you think about it.

                1. And the irony of someone who is blogwhoring calling me out for blogwhoring on a blog they are whoring.

                  Hilarious.

              2. Seriously Sugarfree, It’s not like anyone one reads that stupid slashfic on your site anyway. Sometime I’ll get around to showing you how to write a decent piece.

                Hmm, how many hits do you get on that little piece of art anyway? Bet I get more on mine. I guess these boys like feeding time 😉

                1. I don’t even track hits, blogwhore. Nor do I direct to the site in my handle.

                  I hope a raccoon raped your dead dog’s asshole to mush, you miserable troll.

                  1. You semantic lying little blogwhorer. You posted your handle with the words BLOGWHORE underneath three days a go.

                    People who hate animals are fucking assholes. I could say the same about your shriveled pancreas and body but we all know you’d love to be fucked in the asshole by a raccoon, a dog, a pig or half the reason commenters. NTTIWWT

                    1. Did I call you a blogwhorer? I meant a SUGARFREER. You’re such a stupid prick.

                      Hmm, diabetic? You’re such a stupid flaccid prick!

                    2. I am not!! You are!!

                    3. More. More! Too delicious.

                2. I’m ready for my close-up, rctlfy.

            2. Re: rctlfy,

              LOL, OM you are so out of practice-you used to be a challenge!

              REALLY, rctfly? “Well, don’t compare one with the other because one is legal.” You mean you think coming up with question-begging arguments is challenging for me?

              Give yourself some credit here.

              This is one big country and if you want to avoid taxation, live in the wilderness. Don’t use the roads, hospitals, schools et al. Move, or continue to vote your convictions.

              Nice comeback – “well, if you don’t like it, leave!”

              The “put out or get out” argument. Used by rapists AND statists of every ilk – birds of a feather . . .

              1. Hmm, how many hits do you get on that little piece of art anyway?

                None.

                1. So rule 34 even applies to someone sodomizing a dead canine? No way I’m Googling to find out. One of you guys go ahead first.

                  1. The real question should be: Are raccoons subject to Rule 34?

                    1. Randy Raccoon says Yes.

                    2. Well we are most of the way there. We have a raccoon sodomizing a live dog.

                      Someone call SWAT so we can get a dead dog ASAP.

  8. Paul Conway’s brother, another benficiary of being on the inside. Prosecutor tipped by friendly detectives of investigation and search

    1. Is that story getting general coverage down there, or is it just Freddoso going off on Conway all on his lonesome?

      1. As of yesterday, the only Kentucky hit is a wire story in the Louisville paper.

      2. First I’ve heard of it.

        1. If you would draw yourself away from Jezabel for a few minutes you might learn something.

          1. If you lived here, you’d ignore state politics too. It’s like having Nickelodeon Gak sprayed in your eyes every time you turn on the TV.

            1. as a child of the 90s, that sounds AWESOME!

              1. That network’s been in a downhill slide after Pete and Pete went off the air.

                1. I wouldn’t know, the Nick in my head runs Pete and Pete forever.

                2. +1

                  Loved that show. I still have a cassette of Polaris songs I got from a Wheaties promotion when I was a kid.

              2. Gak, not awesome. Slime, maybe awesome. The rumor is that Slime was just applesauce.

                1. Nope. Goat semen.

  9. http://www.independent.co.uk/n…..15637.html

    This is interesting. Apparently Wikileaks seems only interested in US military leaks and nothing else.

    1. Well, yeah. If they looked into leaking things from other areas of government they might get democrats or leftists in trouble too and I don’t think they want to do that.

    2. That’s because those are sexy.

    3. Whatshispuss albino dude has already said he has a political motivation against the US.

      1. I have a political motivation against the U.S. government.

        1. He posts US shit because he thinks he’s sure that no one will try to kill him for it. As far as he thinks he knows.

  10. http://dailycaller.com/2010/10…..supported/

    Democrats promise to get counseling and stop abusing voters if they are given just one more chance.

    1. Manchin said on “Fox News Sunday” that he would not have supported the bill if he had been made aware of everything that was in it at the time.

      I’m not sure that “I voted for something that could have made puppies and unicorns illegal for all I knew” is going to rally a lot of support for you.

      1. Of course, it’s not like it’s his responsibility to know what’s in the bill all on his own.

        So fucking indicative of everything that’s wrong in this country.

      2. I’m surprised that the push to pass bills before anyone has read them has not hurt the Democrat leadership more than it has. Most people seem to regard the “didn’t even read the bill” charges as normal partisan wrangling. In my opinion any legislator who’s position is not “If I cannot fully understand the bill before me, I will always vote no” is completely unqualified for office and should be immediately removed.

        I don’t care if they title the bill “The Saving Puppies and Unicorns Act”, if you cannot read and completely comprehend the bill and obtain informed advice as to the full consequence of the bill were it to become law, you had better not vote to impose this law upon us hapless citizens.

        1. This. 100%. I am surprised by the lack of backlash, too, and how the charges are just kind of shrugged off by the press and even the left-leaning side of the electorate. It would seem to me that wanting politicians to actually be aware of what they’re doing would easily be a non-partisan issue, but instead it’s just another Team-Red/Team-Blue talking point.

          And the excuse is just as horrible: “These things are just too big and complicated.”

          Well fuck, shouldn’t that tell you something as well?

          1. Yeah, like maybe a few hundred people shouldn’t be trying to run an economy of 300 million plus!

            1. I think there is less backlash because we have lowered our expectation of elected officials to that of quasi-criminal, self-absorbed and -serving special-interest shill.

              Hell, Americans almost let out a collective sigh of relief when somebody retires after years of service without a single indictment or sex scandal to their credit.

          2. +100, both of you.

    2. Manchin said on “Fox News Sunday” that he would not have supported the bill if he had been made aware of everything that was in it at the time.

      Uh oh! No senate seat for you.

    3. Manchin is doing everything he can to try and distance himself from Obama. Even though he got an A rating as governor from the Cato Institute and he has the backing of Big Coal, that isn’t enough to make up for having a D beside his name. Obama, Pelosi, and co. have really fucked everyone in their party. When Byrd died, everyone thought Manchin would be a shoe-in, but he’s about to lose in a state where Democrats have run local politics for a long time.

      1. Bill White, the Democrat candidate for governor, is doing the same thing in Texas and it’s not doing him a damn bit of good in the polls. About the only place where you will see or hear the word “Democrat” associated with his name is on the actual ballot himself.

        Thing is, Rick Perry is a scumbag and in a normal election year should probably be susceptible. And Bill White is a good guy and was very successful as mayor of Houston (which by law is a non-partisan position, natch, and may have been pretty easy to do following this guy).

        Bill White would probably make a good governor in a vacuum, but considering all of the mandates and all of the governors-as-executors shit that Obama has and will be passing down, his party affiliation is paramount to this election.

        1. Bill White wasn’t as successful as you think he was. He papered over a lot of the structural issues with the Houston budget and left the mess for somebody else to handle.

          1. True enough, and Perry is hammering him for it.

            1. What about Perry’s budget deficits? Which candidate has worse deficits (in proportion to their budgets)? White is not great on immigration either. I’m voting for Glass.

        2. I assume that Bill White is no better and no worse than Perry on budget issues.

          But Perry has been there plenty long enough. Graft networks take time to grow, and the Republican Governor graft network is now fully mature. Ripping it out and replacing it with a Democrat Governor graft network will be an improvement, for a term or two at least.

      2. This is happening even in California. There’s a TV ad for Bill Lockyer that I thought at first was for a Republican, because it has him saying something like “I say to Democrats, we can’t just raise taxes….” If it even identifies him as a Democrat, it’s in the fine print at the end.

    4. I propose we henceforth just use “Shut the fuck up, Donnie! You’re out of your element!” every time some politician claims they supported something without understanding it.

    5. Were they trying to fool “real” w. Virginians? Y’know, the “hicky” types?

      1. Nice try minge, but even real West (by God) Virginians know they are hicks and they take no offense.

      2. All politicians are always trying to fool everybody, so this isn’t unique.

  11. http://shirt.woot.com/

    Nice shirt today, for those who think the rent is too damn high and/or are karate experts.

  12. From the Brickbats: Some Massachusetts parents are angry that public schools are sending home “fat letters” telling them their children are overweight or obese. Lori-Ann Sumner says she was warned her daughter Shelby is “borderline overweight.” Shelby, 9, is just over 4 foot 9 inches tall and weighs 90 pounds.

    Seems like she’s tall for her age. I was 5 feet 102 lbs once, and not at all fat. Unless this is an oddly shaped girl with a huge tire in the middle and skinny limbs, it doesn’t sound like she’s fat…not that the school has any business in the matter anyway.

    1. If my son’s school sent home a letter like that, I would fucking ream the principle and everyone else who had a hand in that process.

      The shit storm wouldn’t miss anyone.

    2. I’m sure the stats are based on BMI, which is borderline useless for adults and probably even more so for children. Trash the letter and move on.

      Besides, if your kid’s fat you know already. Whether or not you give a shit enough to do something about is the real question, and a letter from school isn’t going to help there.

      1. “Sure, I ignored his weight when Billy shattered the toilet taking an epic 3 hour dump after his November cheese bender and maybe I was a bit self-deluding when I refuse to have an issue when we had to send him to school wearing a sleeping bag, the only thing that fit him… but when a school official sent a letter telling me that my monstrous child was overweight… well, that just changed everything! Thanks, Nanny State!”

        1. Was it government cheese?

        2. A letter from school isn’t going to make a parent care about their child’s health. Not even the rapid increase in child diabetes and high cholesterol makes parents care about their child’s health.

          And school officials: body fat, not BMI, please.

      2. If your kid’s fat, he or she knows already, because all the other kids remind him on a daily basis.

        1. 8th grade: the original Biggest Loser reality show.

        2. Is that still true? When I was in elementary school, there was one (1) “fat kid” in my class. By modern standards, he wasn’t even very fat.

          But nowadays, I seem to see lots of kids that are way fatter than he was. Is fat the new normal for kids? Do they get razzed about it? Are there enough of them now to form their own gangs?

          1. “Gimme me your lunch money!” has now gone from a bully’s threat to one child trying to help another with his overeating problem.

          2. Same here. Very few fat kids, even in high school with maybe 800 kids.

          3. I could be wrong, I was speaking from memory.

      3. If you ever see aphotographs of Gloria Vanderbilt from birth to adulthood, you would see that when she was about eleven, she became a bit pudgy. It’s common for girls to do that at the onset of puberty.

        1. I and all my siblings both male and female got fairly chunky before our growth spurts.

          Now those years are the source of many embarrassing pictures.

      4. Don’t trash the letter; use it to teach the kid that the school authorities are nannies hell-bent on controlling other people’s lives.

    3. “”Shelby is “borderline overweight.” Shelby, 9, is just over 4 foot 9 inches tall and weighs 90 pounds.””

      She could start the one finger purge method to cut some of that weight. Would the school approve?

    4. BMI! BMI!

      1. Something is odd. I calculate a 57 inch kid that weighs 90 pounds to have a BMI of 19.5. Are they doing a standard age-weight thing and not paying attention to height?

        1. Maybe so. That BMI comment was purely a kneejerk reaction to this kind of shit. To which, I am fairly sensitive being a former college football player.

          (I’m overweight, but I’m damn sure not as morbidly obese as the BMI table says… so maybe I am prejudiced. LOL)

          1. Ditto. In college, I was 6’0″ and 210 lbs. Couldn’t pinch an inch anywhere, but on the BMI index I was morbidly obese.

            1. Couldn’t pinch an inch anywhere,

              Anywhere?

              1. Are we back on the micropenis thing again?

                Enter SugarFree in 3…………2…………1……………

        2. They’re using PERCENTILES, of all things. So if everyone else is BMI 15, and you’re BMI 15.1, apparently you’re obese, relatively speaking.

      2. Does BMI even have any correlation to any sort of health statistic? Or is it just a convenient way of charging more for insurance?

    5. 4’9″/90lbs?

      That was about the size of my lady friend during her high school eating disorder days.

      (I’ve been banned from making fun of her size/height to her face, so I’m going to start doing it on the internets)

    6. I like big butts and I cannot lie…

    7. Even the military doesn’t use BMI as the sole measure. They use it as the first, but then they move to ratios like neck to waist and so on.

      Because BMI is a fucking joke.

  13. WaPo’s Gun Story

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..02994.html

    “Dixon’s Glock was one of 86 guns sold by Realco that have been linked to homicide cases during the past 18 years, far outstripping the total from any other store in the region, a Washington Post investigation has found. Over that period, police have recovered more than 2,500 guns sold by the shop, including over 300 used in non-fatal shootings, assaults and robberies.”

    “The Post investigation found that a small percentage of gun stores sells most of the weapons recovered by police in crimes – re-confirming the major finding of studies that came out before federal gun-tracing data were removed from public view by an act of Congress in 2003. For the most part, these sales are legal, but an unknown number involve persons who buy for those who cannot, including convicted felons such as Dixon, in a process known as a “straw purchase.” Such sales are illegal for the buyer and the store, if it knowingly allows a straw purchase. But cases are hard to prove. Law enforcement officials rarely prosecute gun stores, deterred by high bureaucratic hurdles, political pressure and laws that make convictions difficult.”

    1. I’m in favor of most gun rights. And the attempt to sue gun makers out of business was a sneaky and underhanded ploy by the gun control forces. However, did Congress really make secret this information? That doesn’t seem right. And did Congress interfere in state tort law with the same act? I wonder how the states rights crowd here feels about that (let me guess, this is one of those exceptions?).

      On the other hand, if the IC clause means anything it might mean defending national manufacturers from the onerous effects of a handful of state tort laws.

      1. I’m not super knowledgeable about this sort of stuff, but generally its the due process clause that sets constitutional limits as to how far the jurisdiction of state can stretch.

      2. The relevant piece of legislation is the Tiahrt Amendment (which is attached to the ATF appropriations bill) if you want to read more.

    2. Almost all of these stores the post is trying to link to guns used in crimes share one factor: geographic proximity to DC. Once you realize that, the story is a non-starter. If a DC felon wants a gun, and can find a straw purchaser, he’s not driving out to Colorado to do the transaction.

      1. Sounds like you never heard of the Great Aspen Ski Caper of ’76.

    3. “Dixon’s Glock was one of 86 guns sold by Realco that have been linked to homicide cases during the past 18 years, far outstripping the total from any other store in the region…”

      That can’t be true. The store that sold the most guns used in homicides is the one that supplies Prince George’s County cops.

      1. I don’t think they were talking about doggy homicides.

    4. Slow like dead progressive cat.

      https://reason.com/blog/2010/10…..nt_1965657

      You missed the best part. The quote from the Prince George Major.

  14. http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..tml?sub=AR

    This is quite an article on the Black Panther case in the WAPO of all places. In it, DOJ officials admit that in their view voting rights laws were not written and should not be enforced to protect anyone but black people.

    1. To be fair, they say “historically oppressed minorities, not white people”, rather than just “black people”. Also to be fair, everyone knows that it is impossible for a white person to be discriminated against, because as a group white people hold all the power. These racist Tea-baggers should be prosecuted for filming people outside a public polling place. This kind of intimidation of Black Panther poll watchers is a clear violation of their civil rights.

      1. Something I find interesting: according to those in charge of protecting our civil rights, Jews do not count as an “historically oppressed minority.”

        1. Or the Irish! WTF is up with that?

        2. Technically, slaughtered is different from oppressed.

  15. Run, Come Smell The Desperation!

    Head-scratching over the anti-Democrat backlash. Plus the comments preview almost every excuse for the looming Democratic slaughter.

    1. Incumbent tears are oh so sweet.

    2. You can’t solve a problem until you realize you have one. Best explanation for the Democrats impending doom ever is here.

      AMERICANS: “So, the economy is pretty bad and there’s high employment. You think you can do something about that?”

      DEMOCRATS AND OBAMA: “We can spend a trillion dollars we don’t have on pork and stuff.”

      AMERICANS: “No ? that’s not what we want. We’d really like you not to do that.”

      DEMOCRATS: “You’re stupid. We’re doing it anyway.”

      AMERICANS: “That’s not going to help us get jobs!”

      DEMOCRATS: “Sure it will; millions of them ? though they may be invisible. You’ll have to trust us they exist. And guess what else we’ll do: We’ll create a giant new government program to take over health care.”

      AMERICANS: “That has nothing to do with jobs!”

      DEMOCRATS: “We don’t care about that anymore. We really want a giant new health care program. We’re sure you’ll love it.”

      AMERICANS: “Don’t pass that bill. You hear me? Absolutely do not pass that bill.”

      DEMOCRATS: “Believe me; you’ll love it. It has ? well, I don’t know what exactly is in the bill, but we’re sure it’s great.”

      AMERICANS: “Listen to me: DO. NOT. PASS. THAT. BILL.”

      DEMOCRATS: “You’re not the boss of me! We’re doing it anyway!”

      AMERICANS: “Look what you did! Now the economy is way worse, we’re even deeper in debt, and we have a bunch of new laws we don’t want!”

      DEMOCRATS: “You’re racist.”

      AMERICANS: “Wha ? How is that racist?”

      DEMOCRATS: “Now you’re getting violent! Stop being violent and racist, you ignorant hillbillies! And remember to vote Democrat in November.”

      http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/r…..epage=true

      1. That is awesome because it’s true.

    3. Wiegel had an even worse piece over the weekend.

      http://www.slate.com/id/2272097/

      1. On Friday morning we file in for the conference. Just outside are giant tubs of coffee and tea, and abstracts for papers that are in progress or completed.

        Prospects for an American Neofascism. Initially the project would consist of a review of recent research on American right wing groups (including the Tea Party movement, the Minutemen, and the Christian right); and of trends in national and transnational political economy that bear on our subject (such as cyclical and structural economic crises, corporate/government interpenetration, and the explosive growth of the military/industrial/security complex).

        A Macro-Micro Model of Participation in Political Action: The Tea Party and Cognitive Biases in Information Consumption and Processing. Hypotheses were tested using qualitative data obtained from interviews with two groups: protest participants from various Tea Party protests (protesting group, N-15) and non-protesting Tea Party “supporters” (supporting group, N=3). Results show that strongly held pre-existing beliefs (particularly economic and political individualist ideology) heavily impacted levels of dissatisfaction with government policy and choices of information consumed.

        The Onion couldn’t write anything more funny.

        1. Prospects for an American Neofascism. Initially the project would consist of a review of recent research on American right wing groups

          As if the road to fascism has every started with a right turn.

      2. Going to Berkeley to study the Tea Party is a bit like going to Vidor, TX to study black culture.

        1. Oh man, massive points for mentioning that shithole.

      3. “Wiegel had an even worse piece over the weekend.”

        You mean a gay meth addict with no teeth, all covered with sores?

        1. stop stalking me!

      4. I loved this part:

        Perlstein kicks off the conference with an analysis of conservative anger, tracing its history and discussing the “sluicing” that conservatives do to keep people angry by giving them stories that reinforce their fears.

        Because we all know that the left never tries to get people angry or play on their fears, right?

        1. Doesn’t that pretty well describe the regular Balko Monday Morning Nutbuster? The BMMN??

      5. Why even read it? The side of a grapenuts box is more interesting and doesn’t come with the “I’m all for freedom, but..” disclaimer.

      6. Prospects for an American Neofascism. Initially the project would consist of a review of recent research on American right wing groups

        Unfortunately, Berkeley academics can’t read well enough to read the original fascist literature to see that the Tea Parties are economically opposite of fascists…

        1. You don’t understand? Someone who is a far right extremist is a crazy anarchist (like me), and if they go even further right they become the complete opposite, a fascist. They go back and forth defining “right” as anarchist and/ or fascist depending on who they are trying to scare. Sometimes you can catch them using both in the same propaganda piece.

    4. http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..04005.html

      According to my congressman, Jim Moran (VA-8): Moran believes that Democrats are temporary victims of knee-jerk opposition to the “profound, watershed event” of electing an African American president. The GOP’s current energy is fueled largely by fear and racism, he said, and by manipulation of grass-roots sentiment by a handful of ultra-rich families funding the tea party.

      I’d say that he really doesn’t believe that. But this is Moran. This is actually an improvement. Usually he blames his problems on Jewish people.

      1. Somebody has to say it:

        Get a brain, Moran!

      2. So are the ultra-rich families also sending Hollywood wackers to get Randy Quaid and the missus?

        Now that he is in Canada, he’ll be able to go back on his meds. They’re free eh, in the Great White North.

      3. We’re racist.

    5. I like to think of this as the “why do people hate me when I smugly hypermile my Prius in the left lane of the freeway” school of journalism.

    6. That may not make sense, but the hidden brain is not in the rationality business. When we are stuck in a bad place, whether that bad place is a marriage, a traffic jam, or a weak economy, it is very tempting to try something new.

      Very nice. Yet another variation on the theme that Tea Party voters are stupid, crazy, or just don’t know what’s best for them.

      1. I wondered about this, too. Apparently it is irrational to leave a bad marriage or avoid a known traffic jam. Thank FSM I’m an irrational nutbag.

      2. Holy Fuck! He has a hidden brain!

    7. From the comments:

      The Republicans win the elections because they steal them.

      The stupid is strong with this one. Or maybe his short-term memory is fading. 2006 and 2008 weren’t that long ago, were they?

    8. I think that the Democrats must represent the rational party, because they have become the masters of rationalization.

  16. Early voted this weekend. Voted straight Libertarian despite my reservations about the governor candidate (Texas) and against red light cameras in Houston. Hopefully those awful things get voted down.

    1. Me too. Straight LP. I was primarily voting for Not Rick Perry and Not Kevin Brady, though.

      1. My state’s gubernatorial race is tightening. They’re trying to tempt me. But I still plan to vote straight LP. (And I’d hate to lose my 30-year streak of never voting for a winner.)

        1. I like the folks in the Maryland Libertarian Party and will probably be one of the 9k votes for their candidates.

          Previously I lived in Utah, where they’d vote overwelmingly for a tree stump if it had R next to it’s name. Here, scum like O’Malley waltz into office becuase they have D next to his name.

  17. Who’s worse, Mel Gibson or Mike Tyson? Hollywood hypocrisy at its best!

    http://www.montrealgazette.com…..id=3713063

    “According to a provocative post from New York magazine’s Vulture blog, why did the “Hangover” cast and crew have a beef with Mel Gibson but not with Mike Tyson, who enjoyed a cozy 15 minutes of fame after his similar stunt casting in the original movie? Gibson has certainly spoiled his reputation by unleashing a torrent of anti-Semitic slurs after being arrested in 2006 for drunk driving, then dug himself a deeper hole after being heard making racist and misogynist remarks to his former girlfriend, who conveniently taped Gibson’s abusive rants.

    That’s pretty bad stuff, but what about Tyson? He’s a convicted rapist who spent three years in prison for sexual assault against Desiree Washington, a former Miss Black Rhode Island. So why wasn’t there any outrage when Tyson was cast?”

    1. That’s pretty bad stuff, but what about Tyson?

      It would seem farfetched, I know, but then again, it’s possible: Because he’s black?

    2. Tyson paid his debt to society? Yeah he is a rapist, but shouldn’t he be able to work now that he is out of jail?

      1. Umm… Gibson never did anything worthy of prison in the first place, so how exactly is he supposed to pay his debt to society?

        1. He is not. But if you run around and give racist rants against Jews in an industry full of Jews, I have a hard time having much sympathy for you when it destroys your job prospects.

          1. Helen Thomas and Rick Sanchez will offer their sympathy, however.

    3. Mel got kicked off the set because of the odd rider in his contract. He’d accept lower billing, didn’t need a luxury trailer, but did insist that the production crew “blow him first.”

    4. So why wasn’t there any outrage when Tyson was cast?

      Have you seen Desiree Washington? Who can blame the brother for getting a little frisky?

      1. That’s a bit shitty, RC Dean. I can blame the brother for getting frisky against her will.

  18. I knew better, but I clicked Sugarfree’s Slate link.

    That guy manages to makes the average Jezebel commenter sound coherent.

    1. I knew better, but I clicked Sugarfree’s Slate link.

      I am the sweetest taboo.

  19. Haiti should be educated for proper hygiene. Dengue is also one of the diseases that threaten the area.

    We help Americans move to Asia for jobs and prosperity. Learn more at http://www.pathtoasia.com

  20. Did you know that your money has depreciated in real value an incredible 14% in just the last two months alone?

    U.S. Dollar hits 15 year low versus the yen.

    It’s time to wake up, dumbass American sheeple. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Bernanke, and the rest of the psychopaths running America are destroying our currency and our future right before our very eyes.

    1. So? We want to get reelected and we’re gonna-

      uhhhhhhh, shit

    2. I think this is a good thing. If China can’t keep devaluing their currency they might have to import stuff and the people will get more bang for the yuan.

      I know Canada is concerned that their loony is worth too much. The whole inflation = bad thing is a very elementary school understanding of money. The yuan rising to a more sensible level is a good example.

      1. oops, yen, not yuan. I’m not the brightest breakfast food. Still, if the Yen is so high that means Japan is double-screwed. People will buy less Japanese stuff.

  21. “They’re murdering celebrities in Hollywood. They really are.”

    A shadowy group of anonymous people who go around killing Hollywood celebrities for unknown reasons, maybe just for fun?

    Goes to show that just because something makes perfect sense, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true.

    1. I don’t think it’s murder.

      HEATH: If you don’t eat this goddamn cheeseburger, I’ll kill myself right now!

      MARY KATE: I don’t believe you.

      1. This is a walk-off homerun.

  22. if the Yen is so high that means Japan is double-screwed. People will buy less Japanese stuff.

    Indeed; and the Germans aren’t exactly thrilled about the appreciation of the Euro.

  23. Good ol’ Wikileaks. Maybe they should release a live feed of coalition soldier locations next? All in the name of freedom of speech of course; we can’t survive without knowing all this!

  24. In other news, Pauly Krugnuts goes full retard
    ….again.

    How did this get missed?

    1. Shouldn’t they just permalink Pauly’s column to the top of H&R?

    2. H&R needs a Retard Rickshaw section.

      That was for the MMO gaming nerds.

    3. a fiscal stimulus that consisted mainly of tax cuts, help for the unemployed and aid to hard-pressed states

      That is just out and out bullshit, even for him.

  25. KPC bringing the truth today.

    Top 10 signs Obama is a lefty

    In an earlier post, I became aware that our president, at least on foreign policy and many social issues actually is acting in quite a conservative manner. Unfortunately, he is also totally wrong on these issues just as the previous “conservative” administration was.

    So I started to wonder exactly why I had the perception that Obama was “pretty far left”.

    Hence this Top 10 signs Obama is a lefty list:

    10. His incessant pandering to unions

    9. His child-like love for high speed rail

    8. His pushing for subsidies for solar, wind, & ethanal (i.e. uneconomic boondogles).

    7. His refusal to understand that electric cars actually burn coal in many parts of the country!

    6. His firm belief that a small group of experts can competently run the economy

    5. The amazing growth in the Federal budget under his watch

    4. His habit of flip-flopping like a boated marlin

    3. His inability to consider issues of moral hazard or unintended consequences in policymaking

    2. His belief that anyone who disagrees with him is stupid or evil or both

    1. His overall superior, moralistic, and condescending attitude

  26. ..and the other guy on that blog.

    Macro and the non-economist

    After playing tennis with a non-economist friend yesterday, he asked me how can macro have two completely different schools of thought which seem to differ even on the basics. I told him that, at the op-ed level, macro had a lot of ideology and politics in it and there were more than two schools of thought!

    He then asked how it could be the case that when people look at the same data, they don’t arrive at the anything near the same conclusion. He said that it was irritating and frustrating to see constant disagreement by economists over macro issues

    I told him two things.

    First, there isn’t really that much data! Since world war two we are working on what, our 10th business cycle?

    Second, macro is largely a non-experimental science thus causation was a b*c;h; to figure out and counterfactuals were in short supply.

    I also told him that op-ed level macro wasn’t generally serious academic macro (though some of it is).

    And he asked me what serious academic macro had done vis a vis predicting the meltdown.

    I told him, “very little”.

    I then told him macro forecasters are like weatherpeople, the worse we do and the worse things get, the more they are in demand. I don’t think he was too impressed.

    I don’t fault modern macro for not predicting the financial meltdown; to me thats a borderline silly complaint.

    I do think though that op-ed level macro is often not doing the profession any favors in its quest to be viewed as a science.

  27. “http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322246/Man-leaves-home-week-decorated-15-squatters-in.html”>Hotelier leaves home for a week so it can be decorated . . . then 15 jobless Italian squatters move in

  28. I’m just pointing out that roads and road networks, however loosely organized, more often came from a need for commerce as opposed to from a need to transport warfare.

    Rather than quibble over whether paved streets in a town or a single road constitute a “road network”, let me point out that the Roman roads were generally built initially by/for the Legions, who were expert at scoping out the best travel routes whether for trade or conquest.

    At the time in Europe, there was relatively little long-range overland commerce outside the Roman Empire. Once the Empire came in, long-range overland trade followed, using the best routes, as identified and paved by the Legions.

    There are exceptions, etc., but at least in Europe at the time, there wasn’t any real need for good road networks until the Romans showed up, built them, at which point, like networks everywhere and everywhen, they filled up with commerce.

    1. I guess this explains the dearth of cities more than a few miles from a sea or the mouth of a river at the time. Point taken.

      1. You can see this America. Any major city before WWI that isn’t a port or on a navigable river is a railroad city. Atlanta, Dallas, Omaha, places like that.

        1. And here I always thought Omaha was a wagon train city. Populated by all the folks that slept late and at one point asked “where the fuck did the wagon train go?”, then hung around waiting for them to come back and get them.

  29. Nothing surprising in the Wikileaks stuff: it all seemed halfway between the Bush administration’s spin and the most vociferous of the anti-war/Bush critics’ horror stories.

    1. I’m waiting for the Afghanistan round next.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.