I Can't Improve on This Headline

"Cuba Tries To Create Its Own Wikipedia, But Might Have Difficulty Seeing It As It Blocks Internet Access"

Comments

[Fist of Etiquette]

With 100% literacy, I assume the Cubans would be too smart to trust anything they read on Wikipedia anyway.

[Tim]

When will Castrobook launch?

[robc]

First comment on that site was actually good:

Does it seem ironic that a communist country has a really hard time doing genuinely communal projects, like wikipedia, or other crowd-sourcing efforts? There's probably a lesson somewhere in here about what is purported to promote cooperation and what actually promotes cooperation.

[robc]

Following up on this, one thing is historically clear: its take a free market to make communitarianism work.

Linux may have been invented in Finland, but there is a reason Torvalds lives in America. American free markets make open source work.

There is a reason that the Amish and Mennonites and other religious communities migrated to the US. Freedom allows it to work.

The Amish will still be living in their weird communities, sharing with each other as they require long after Cuban communism is dead and gone.

[VoteMuslimNoPork]

Freedom, Bitches!

[Jesse Walker]

First comment on that site was actually good

That is a good comment. WHY CAN'T YOU PEOPLE BE THAT SMART?

[VoteMuslimNoPork]

Comparative advantage tbh

[R C Dean]

Bad role models?

[Fark Admin]

You'll get over it.

[cynical]

Something something sheep-fucking.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Ouch for me.

[FleeingCali]

When will he just go die?

[Mango Punch]

So, Cuba is launching an online encyclopedia.

[Tim]

WikiCuba has over five entries on subjects ranging from Agriculture to Zealotry

[Fist of Etiquette]

The entry on the Chevrolet Bel Air is particularly popular.

[Tim]

+1

[Michael Copps]

I like where this is heading!

[Nancy Pelosi]

Sure would make our jobs easier!

[Jean-Luc Obama]

Make it so!

[Max]

ARFARFARFARFARFARFARF!!!!!!!!!!!!

[?]

That headline is only accidentally good. The tone of the article under it is like "Communism may mildly disappoint, on occasion, from a certain point of view, but I wouldn't be so reckless as to say so, at this time, because the future is unknowable, and stuff."

On the internet, the professor isn't trying to catch you being a secret Republican and destroy your life. Relax.

[Quiet Desperation]

I managed to log into it. All it has is a entries on Michael Moore films and a page about cigars.

[Patriot Mike]

But they have free health care, and no guns!

[Jeffersonian]

Fidel Castro....now **there's** a guy who knows how to regulate interstate commerce.

[Threadjack]

In other news, "Reason" refuses to make any mention of recent news stories concerning incest, due to its lack of any coherent position on the subject.

Stories missed so far:

Columbia Professor Charged With Incest With 24-year-old Daughter
Switzerland Considers Repealing Incest Laws

[Ragnarok]

Why do you think libertarians don't have a coherent position on the subject? AFAIK, we are pretty darn consistent when it comes to choices by consenting adults.

[Because]

Devil's Contrarian|1.5.10 @ 10:09PM|#

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Back up a minute. Now I can see these "civil union" laws do say what Mr. Bailey says they say, but what's with this part?

* The couple may not be close family members. A woman may not enter into a civil union with her mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, sister, brother's daughter, sister's daughter, father's sister or mother's sister. A man may not enter into a civil union with his father, grandfather, son, grandson, brother, brother's son, sister's son, father's brother or mother's brother;

Question: why's that in there? It's not like any of these people can breed. This whole section of law is already contrary to the Bible, so that's obviously not the source for this restriction either. Why can't a dude legally marry--er, have a "civil union" with--his brother, or a dame with her sister? Or, you know, any of these people mentioned with each other?

What's up with that? What's so wrong about incest if nobody involved is capable of making babies? Don't tell me any fairy tales about the "ick factor" either: anything involving a guy's cornhole is pretty icky by most people's standards too, but you notice that didn't stop those Vermont freaks from passing these laws.

On what grounds did they include this law against gay incest? Do you guys agree with this? Inquiring minds want to know!

Marshall Gill|1.6.10 @ 8:12AM|#

Interesting point. I though the prohibition on incest was a result of things like the "Hapsburg Jawline" which I am certain none of us want to see.

It is strange. If two consenting adults should be able to form a civil union, why not those who are related?

Wisconsinite|1.6.10 @ 1:43PM|#

Here as interesting piece of Wisconsin Law:

(1) No marriage shall be contracted... between persons who are nearer of kin than 2nd cousins except that marriage may be contracted between first cousins where the female has attained the age of 55 years or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit signed by a physician stating that either party is permanently sterile.

Edwin|1.7.10 @ 3:55PM|#

only in the libertarian community will you find people arguing against anti-incest laws. Unfortunately it makes the rest of us sane libertarians look bad

Devil's Contrarian|1.8.10 @ 4:09AM|#

only in the libertarian community will you find people arguing against anti-incest laws. Unfortunately it makes the rest of us sane libertarians look bad

Maybe so, but what is your sane, libertarian argument for laws against gay incest? Gay incest won't give kids the "Hapsburg Jawline" because there aren't going to be any kids from it. Gay incest may be pretty icky, but so is a lot of sex that isn't against the law. So why should it be outlawed?

Edwin|1.8.10 @ 10:19AM|#

BECAUSE IT'S INCEST YOU FUCKING RETARD

Devil's Contrarian|1.8.10 @ 5:45PM|#

BECAUSE IT'S INCEST YOU FUCKING RETARD

Meaning: "Ick! Ick! Ick!"

If you can't come up with anything better than that, you'll have to admit the law against gay incest makes no sense. For that matter, no law against any form of incest that can't make babies makes any sense.

So, are you conceding defeat?

jeffrey soreff|1.9.10 @ 1:22PM|#

So, in your view the caps lock key is the essential part of a sane, libertarian argument?

Stan|1.9.10 @ 3:53PM|#

He probably thinks this is Southpark.

"You know, we believe in equality for everybody, and tolerance, and all that gay stuff, but dude, **** you!"

Typical "libertarian" absurdity; if you don't like where your own logic is taking you, shout louder and swear at the guy who's calling your bluff. It works at DU.

Jocon307|1.10.10 @ 2:55AM|#

Good point about gay incest. Of course the reason why it is there is because gays want society to imbue them with normalcy.

Furthermore, I don't like the idea of the Vermont judge changing custody as a punishment to the parent. I don't see how that can stand.

I will also add that I think that Pennsylvania ruling is a disgrace.

[Steve]

Why do you think libertarians don't have a coherent position on the subject?

Because they used to deny that position so as to make gay "marriage" sound more *reasonable?

(*Unintended pun, but drink 'em if ya got 'em)

[Michael]

It's about time that the noble proletariat exposed Wikipedia for the bloodthirsty, profit-driven misinformation machine that it is.