Reason Morning Links: Explosion at French Nuclear Plant, Tim Pawlenty Endorses Mitt Romney, Protestors Storm Israeli Embassy in Egypt


New at "Matt Welch Debates Ann Coulter on the Iraq War, TSA, and Using Torture on Stossel."


NEXT: The Limits of the Bully Pulpit

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. You all better have your post-9/11 mindset going today.

    1. In a post-9/11 world, the post-9/11 world post-9/11s post-9/11ly.

      1. The perfect post for 9/12…

    2. Can Hit & Run even function without irony?

      1. Back in the days when there was plenty of bronzy and goldy to use as substitutes it could.

        The tragedy of the commons claims another victim.

  2. The Obsolete “Post Office President”…..99247.html

    “Yet there is a much deeper and more profound irrelevance to the president’s proposals. They are all based on the premise that the government can come up with a few targeted initiatives and select some worthy projects to fund through a federal “infrastructure bank,” and this will somehow press the magic levers that produce economic growth. None of this has any relation to the actual dynamism of a free economy, because Obama does not grasp the source of that dynamism.”

    1. Did you read Holoman Jenkins “Obama if he told the truth jobs speech” piece in the Wall Street Journal? It is a brutal. Forgive the block quote but it is worth reading and behind a pay wall.

      I am not anti-business. I get a supreme sense of satisfaction when business leaders approach me and, in a deferential manner, ask for subsidies and regulatory favors that will determine whether their companies succeed or fail. Like solar subsidies. This is the kind of job creation I’m interested in.

      My administration has taken flak because of our “investment” of tax dollars in a solar company that last week filed for bankruptcy. Don’t be misled. If such companies were profitable and could survive without subsidies, they would not be fit objects of government charity, nor would their leaders approach me with a deferential mien.

      Their dependency is what makes them loyal constituents, generous with a campaign donation, willing to go on CNBC and praise our policies. You can always count on me for job creation when it means taking money from independent businesses, those that are answering the call of the marketplace, and giving it to dependent businesses, those that are answering the call of government.

      In closing, let us recognize that an election is approaching. The time is upon us when my administration must ratchet up its rhetoric to make it sound like your agenda (jobs, growth) is my agenda.

      Indeed, I will begin tonight by junking the more revealing passages of this draft speech and pretending that I place a higher value on job-creating pragmatism than on my progressive shibboleths.

      This, I hope, will cause you to re-elect me. Thank you for listening.…..68090.html

      1. That’s actually really good.

        1. Also equally applicable to Republicans.

          1. GO TEAM!!!!!

          2. Indeed. I really do wish that a president would use ‘shibboleths’ more in speeches.

            1. Dead right on all points, natch.

      2. What pay wall?…..68090.html

        1. Holy crap, they did put up a pay wall. When did they get rid of opinionjournal?

          1. Just google the article’s title. Paywall vanish!


            1. You made the same mistake I did. That’s a teaser to the article. No matter, I have the hard copy in the kitchen.

              1. Interesting. I copied the URL of the full article I found, but you get the teaser from it. Just google “Obama’s Jobs Speech: An Early Draft” First link will take you to the full article.

                Well worth the read.

  3. Vampire attack? The girl is 22. Probably some Twilight fanatic. Time to put an end to Meyers’ reign of terror!

    1. Dozing off happens, sure. Being in a wheelchair, I understand. But dozing off while wheelchair-bound when there is a hungry vampire around is really asking for it if you ask me.

    2. Where’s team Jacob when a man in a wheelchair needs them?

  4. Israel facing a “diplomatic tsunami”.

    Over three decades of peace efforts in the Middle East appears to be circling the drain. It would be pretty sad indeed if the end result of the so-called “Arab Spring” was yet another major Arab-Israeli war.

    1. da [JOOS] act like its all about them after mis-handled both the gaza floatillas & the arab spring

      1. but but but netanyahu & likud are infallable [GODZ] !

        1. At least Netanyahu understands his country’s sugar daddy better than most Israeli pols.

    2. “Israel had found itself ‘alone without a friend’ in the region.”

      Oh nooo! Whatever will they do?!

    3. Quite the opposite. Egyptians still don’t have freedom of the press, tolerance towards LGBT individuals, a functioning economy, and a slew of other qualities that modern democracies enjoy. If the Egyptian street is putting it’s focus towards attacking Israel instead of building their own state, what type of future will they have?

      For years, the Left said that the suffering of Arabs was our fault because we supported Arab governments. Well, the USA let Mubarak fall, and Egyptians are squandering their chance at a free state. They are running out of excuses.

      1. To their credit, the Egyptian military evacuated the Israeli embassy staff to safety, and Jordan increases security at its Israeli embassy.

      2. When the cosmos started going all gaga at the beginning of the “Arab Spring” thinking it was all so wonderful, some of us tried to warn them about this.

        1. Mike M., you were right to be skeptical. I was cautiously optimistic during the Arab Spring.

      3. During the 19th century the US “street” put its energy towards wanting to kill every last Indian in the west.

        In 1914 the German, French and English “street” demanded an apocalyptic war that would fuck up all three countries essentially forever.

        The street wants stupid shit sometimes. It doesn’t mean their march to democracy is doomed or what have you. Let’s see what happens before declaring Fat Lady.

        1. Well, in both of your examples, the “street” got what it wanted, so I am confused how that is helpful in the analysis.

          1. Jtuf appears to be arguing, “The Egyptian street wants stupid stuff, therefore their democracy will fail.”

            I’m just pointing out that lots of streets have wanted stupid stuff but democracy has still marched on.

            1. Sorry, brown people have six months tops to get their house in order before we invade.

              1. That’s racist of you to say, Tulpa. The same policies should apply to people regardless of their skin color.

            2. Fluffy, it’s a matter of time scale and path. End states are unpredictable, so it makes more sense to consider the near term future. Yes, France and Germany were established democracies by 1964, but events there between 1914 and 1964 were rather unacceptable by my standards. If you’re willing to dismiss the genocide of 12 million people and the total casualties of WWII in France and Germany as a minor bump in the road, that says much about you.

        2. Except that’s completely wrong–

          The government wanted to “kill every last Indian”–the ‘street’ had already begun turning the Indian into an icon.

          The governments of France, England and Germany demanded an apocalyptic war, the ‘street’ got dragged into that war. They were not clamoring for it.

          The street does want stupid shit–and it wants it often–but it does not want the type of things governments want. The ‘unrest of the arab street’ was government saber rattling given a populist cover….and a ‘street’ that responds well to Islamic jihad.

        3. During the 19th century the US “street” put its energy towards wanting to kill every last Indian in the west.

          Again, it’s a matter of scale. When you look at each decade, 19th Century USA history supports my point. The territory gained by attacking Mexicans in the 1940’s reinvigorated the pro-slavery movement, making American democracy take a step back. The Gilded Age started when Americans stopped displacing Native Americans.

      4. The US still supports plenty of ME/NA dictators, the big kahuna being Saudi Arabia, with Yemen, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Morocco not far behind. Also we fund the Egyptian army which is the de facto ruler of Egypt right now.

        And what Fluffy said about expecting immediate transition to liberal democracy.

        1. Tulpa, do you support ending USA funding for Arab nations? If so, I agree, and I wish you would have taken that position sooner.

    4. yet another major Arab-Israeli war

      Assuming this did happen, I wonder what the US’ role would be.

      1. Hopefully we’d sit the fuck back. They are more than capable of defending themselves without issue against all but 1) Iran (and they may be competent against Iran too), 2) the entire fucking Muslim world attacking them at once.

        1. But what about Turkey? If Turkey turns on Isreal. Isreal has a big problem.

          1. That’s been slowly happening for a while now. Erdogan is a committed Islamist who pretends to be a moderate when it suits him order to maintain their positive trade ties with Europe.

            1. Turkey is threatening to send a war ship to Gaza in the near future.

      2. With an election coming up?

        Rally ’round the flag boys! Wag the dog!

  5. Re: Pawlenty endorsing Romney — Does that mean Mitt agreed to contribute to Pawlenty’s campaign fund in order to pay off Pawlenty’s campaign debts?

    1. Both supporters sullenly went over to the Romney campaign.

    2. No, but he did get the number of Mitt’s stylist, with the understanding that an introduction would be made but no specific commitments beyond that.

  6. Root blockquotes his links. It looks like some kind of vertical Morse code. I don’t trust it.

  7. What happened to child-rearing the past 30 years?…..ity_plugin

    personally, I was a “free-range” child. When not in school, I left the house pretty much all day to play with the neighborhood kids. Or bike over to my best friend who like a mile away. There were very little parents around – being the 70s, I’ve always assumed they were smoking weed or wife-swapping – so we made forts, fought, went sledding, fishing, etc etc. It seems like Tom Sawyer compared to today. *shakes cane*

    1. 24/7 news channels?

    2. I take issue with only one line in that article:

      The assertion that the country isn’t different.

      I totally allow that crime figures are lower.

      But the total number of passenger car miles driven is vastly higher, on roughly the same size road network.

      I could be allowed to ride my bike everywhere in 1977 because during the day time outside of the two rush hours there weren’t any cars on residential streets. Or so few that you could do things like play street hockey on them.

      I don’t let my kid roam the neighborhood at five partially because every other adult in my town would freak out if I did, but largely because the residential streets are now a non-stop Mad Max zone full of drivers with no apparent need to be at fucking work during the day and with nothing better to do than clog up the streets. And I live in motherfucking Vermont. I can only imagine what it’s like in standard suburbs.

      I was a very independent kid starting at age 4 (I was an early entry kindergarten student who was allowed to walk to school) but if I had been required to deal with today’s traffic levels I would have gotten killed.

      In truly urban areas with the worst traffic, a kid can actually deal. I’d let my kid walk around in Manhattan, because the pedestrian / car interactions are hypercontrolled. It’s the suburbs where it’s a problem because everybody (including me) drives 60 on side streets.

      1. I think also that back then (I grew up in the 60’s) was that there were adults (usually moms) lurking around in fairly close proximity so that if a kid got in trouble or something happened there was someone who could and would do something about it. When I was about 5 I parachuted off a swing and broke my arm. There were adults who were not my parents converging on the scene within a few seconds or so to render assistance. That is not the case as much anymore, mainly because in most families both parents work.

        As far as traffic, yeah, I don’t like my kid riding her bike around the mean streets of my suburban neighborhood. The traffic is too chaotic. Walking actually seems a safer, if slower, alternative.

        1. Let’s not discount the steady 24 hour a day diet of PEDOPHILESWILLFUCKAND KILLYOURCHILDREN that today’s parents, particularly mothers, live off of.

          It’s utterly fucking palpable. I blame Nancy Grace.

          1. The mainstream media’s focus on pedophilia is disturbing. If you search for “sex” in Google News, half the articles you get are about pedophilia. Compare that to Penthouse, which almost never writes about pedophilia. When you consider that publishers print what their audiences like to read, then it makes sense to pick a Penthouse subscriber over a New York Times subscriber if you’re looking for someone to watch your kids.

            1. Almost never?

              1. I’ve never seen a Penthouse article about pedophilia, but I’ve only read a small fraction of the Penthouse issues ever produced. I estimated “almost never” based on my limited Penthouse data.

          2. True. My son’s elementary school is completely padlocked (except a single door that takes you through the front office) as soon as the kids go inside. I guess it keeps kids from running off, but I think it’s mainly to assure parents that roving bands of pedophile kidnappers aren’t going to snatch their kids.

            1. How does the fire marshall feel about that?

              1. How does the fire marshall feel about that?

                It really puts a crimp in his molesting schedule.

            2. That’s how my kid’s school is as well. You have to be buzzed in. Which is REALLY ANNOYING if there is no one in the front office to hear your pleas for entry.

              Apparently the Fire Marshall doesn’t have an issue with it, although the school has the FD there once or twice a year to go over fire safety: the FD is well aware that the school is locked up.

              1. Keeping largely non-existent boogeymen from getting in the school is much more important than keeping kids from burning alive in the event of a fire.

                1. Well, most school buildings lock from the outside, but you can open the doors from the the inside. It’s not a fire hazard.

                  1. Ja, I doubt the doors are “padlocked” from the inside to keep the kids from running off. Pretty sure the doors are just locked from the inside. (That’s how it is at my son’s school and my daughter’s daycare.) Considering that many offices require keycards or have security desks, the fact that schools have similar policies doesn’t seem like overkill. There’s not much cost to making visitors stop at the school office on their way in. What would be a good argument for not doing that?

                    1. Just to clarify, there are some buildings with doors that are locked from the outside, but open from the inside, so kids can get out in case of a fire. But all of the hallways and areas between buildings have fences and are indeed padlocked after 8:30am. It does seem like it narrows down the escape routes to a few pinch points that you have to go into a building to access.

                2. When I taught in a Brooklyn public school, the principal would give us a few hours warning before any fire drill so we could make sure to hurry the kids out of the building. Failure to evacuate quickly enough during the drill would result in a fine for the school.

                  If the fire alarm went off without this advanced warning, the standing orders were to keep the kids in class until the principal could verify that the alarm wasn’t a prank.

      2. no apparent need to be at fucking work during the day and with nothing better to do than clog up the streets. And I live in motherfucking Vermont.

        There’s a connection there.

      3. I clearly remember automobiles, rather large all-steel ones with V8 engines, driving around the neighborhood while I was out free-ranging.

        1. The suburbs of my childhood only had sidewalks on the main roads. So yeah, you learned not to mess with the big masses of steel going down the side roads. We also had woods and parks to bike in.

          1. Exactly. There was plenty of traffic in my childhood neighborhood. It’s about the same now.

        2. Sure. Just not so many.

          I didn’t live on a cul de sac. I lived in suburban NY on a road that intersected a local highway.

          But I could play street hockey on my street, because the cars were just infrequent enough to allow for Wayne’s World style yelling of “Car!” and moving of nets.

          Same road, 2011 – no chance. Steady stream of traffic. You’d never get the nets back out there.

          The side roads now have near-highway-level traffic streams.

          The other thing that has changed slightly is that the dead spaces of the suburbs have been built out. I Google Mapped my childhood neighborhood the other day just to see if they had Street View of my house. And I discovered that all the empty lots now had houses, and what used to be woods in between neighborhoods is now new neighborhoods. Half my bike travel as a kid was on “paths” through woods between neighborhoods. Now that’s all surface street travel if you try to do it today.

          1. Outside of Burlington, Montpelier, Brattleboro, Manchester and perhaps the Mountain Road and Route 100 intersection in Stowe, what is the non-stop traffic of which you write?

            1. Anybody who lives on a paved road gets non-stop traffic.

              I could move up on the mountain and get some quiet, sure.

              If you’re familiar with Route 7 in Manchester, you can compare the traffic on my street (not 7) to that.

              1. Damn one-off names.

                Now my second job as a Mafia Planner is no longer secret.

      4. the residential streets are now a non-stop Mad Max zone full of drivers with no apparent need to be at fucking work during the day and with nothing better to do than clog up the streets.

        I have noticed a marked increase of this in my quasi-suburb as well. I wonder what is going on? Are there more “stay at home/work at home” Dr. Cosby kind of people who run errands during the day? I am a student with my own home and my schedule means that I am doing things when no one else usually is (that is, going to the grocery store at 11AM), but the parking lots now are fucking full. Any thoughts?

        1. more unemployed = busier roads?

          Maybe an increased number of telecommuters?

          Good question. My neighborhood is fairly quiet during 9-11AM & 1-4PM, with traffic really only picking up during rush hour and lunch.

          1. I think there are more retirees, more self-employed / 1099 people wandering aimlessly and calling it work, and more cars per household.

            That more cars per household thing probably has a big impact. When I was a kid there were still lots of families with only one car. Three times as many cars per household = more cars coming and going.

  8. Exploring the Right Wing Blogosphere
    On 9/11, Rightbloggers Denounce America’s Mortal Enemies: Democrats and Paul Krugman By Roy Edroso Sun., Sep. 11 2011 at 11:13 PM

    At Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government, for example, John Nolte informed us that “9/11 Only Paused the Left’s Attack on America.”

    On 9/11/01, Nolte admitted, he “mourned,” but “ten years on, my emotions have evolved… Because for ten years I’ve watched the Left, much of Hollywood and almost all of the news media turn against our country for mercenary, partisan political reasons.”

    As Big Government readers take it on faith that their political opponents are traitors, Nolte didn’t bother to explain.

    But he did brag on his prescience: back in 2001, he said, when “solemn celebrities hosted benefit concerts and Democrats sang ‘God Bless America’ on the Capitol steps, I knew it wouldn’t last and that over time *they* would become America’s enemy within in the fight to protect herself.” See, Bruce Springsteen and Jon Bon Jovi, you didn’t fool John Nolte!

    “I never even took a moment to hope I was wrong,” added Nolte. And we expect he never will.…..0th_an.php

    1. John, I don’t hate America.

      I just hate you.

      You /= America.

      And I have absolutely no mercenary or partisan reason for doing so.

      1. WTF did I do? I don’t put that link up. And I am not fond of you either. But that is just because you are an asshole. It has nothing to do with your political views, which are generally reasonable.

        1. Heh. Comprehension fail.

          1. I don’t score at home like many do. So I sometimes lose track of just what troll is doing what or just what this or that reference entails.

            1. Dude, the guy’s name is John Nolte.

              1. Dude, the guy’s name is John Nolte.

                To be fair, I thought you were referencing our John as well, since I didn’t RTFA. Not an unreasonable assumption, all things considered.

            2. When you get to the last gospel while reading the Bible, do you exclaim in outrage,

              “You fucking liars! I never wrote ANY of this shit!”

              1. I am home with sever bronchitus on some lovely cough medicine with codeine. So the posts may get a little strange today.

                1. Codeine is the one good thing about having a cold.

                  1. Except when you have a fucking doctor who won’t goddamn prescribe it because of TEH ADDICTIONZ!!

                    Rather than try and give people the shit they need to feel just a little bit better, they’re fucking concerned about creating “dependence”. Fuck you , gatekeepers, and fuck you busybodies who have made it impossible for good people to get the shit they need.

                    1. fucking doctor … Rather than try and give people the shit they need to feel just a little bit better, they’re fucking concerned about creating “dependence”

                      Every article I’ve ever seen about medication prescribed by U.S. doctors says either that 1)U.S. doctors rely too much on handing out pills and don’t consider other options for promoting good health or 2)most patients are reluctant to take medicine to control their pain because the patient is worried about getting addicted.

                  2. When I have a cold, I stick with bad movies (hello MST3K!), a bottle of Merlot, and Cold-Eeze. I’m not sure if the zinc lozenges actually do anything, but it’s a good placebo.

                    1. Well if you have a cold and can’t taste anything, you might as well drink merlot. Why waste good wine.

                    2. what the difference between a $4 bottle and a $10 bottle of Merlot?

                      Six dollars.

                      Seriously, I like the red stuff when the winter weather comes.

                2. I am home with sever bronchitus on some lovely cough medicine with codeine. So the posts may get a little strange today.

                  Just another day a HnR.

  9. I’m pretty much 9/11’d out.

    The problem is that I put the odds at about 60/40 that 9/11 gets turned into some kind of permanent secular grief holiday, like Remembrance Day with the amp turned up to 11, and if that happens I probably have about another 50 9/11 holidays to live through before the sweet release of death finally ends my suffering.

    1. The only way it doesn’t is the reasonably likely chance that something worse happens at some future date that causes us to forget 9-11 like we did OKC. In the era of 24 hour cable news and endless talk shows, our media culture is incapable of doing anything in proportion.

      1. As long as the next 9-11 isn’t actually on 9-11. Then we the terrorists have really won.

      2. Sure, but who actually watches that shit? They can blather on all they like, but it seems like very few people are paying them any attention.

    2. What if they just made 10 louder on 9/11 day? Would that be acceptable?

    3. According to the wall calendar I got from the local hardware store, it’s already become a holiday called Patriot Day. Guess I missed the memo on its establishment.

      1. Do they run the Boston Marathon on that day?

        1. No, that is Patriot‘s Day.

          1. Shit this is going to be confusing.

        1. Hmm. USA PATRIOT Act passed by House on 10/23/2001, signed into law on 10/26/2001. Patriot Day passed by the House on 10/25/2001. So, it’s basically a holiday celebrating the USA PATRIOT Act?

      2. Yep, I’ve seen that too. It was named that on October 25, 2001 under a bill sponsored by Rep. Vito Fossella of NY.

        It just happens to have been so named exactly one day before Bush signed the Patriot Act. What a koinky-dink!

  10. Is it just me or does Coulter look like a turtle with that fat head at the end of a spindly neck..?

    1. the only thing missing is a neck brace & a drool cup

    2. I saw some recent paparazzi-type photo of her exiting a car (sorry, no linky) but she looked like a concentration-camp victim gone to seed.

      1. Oh, so she looks like Madonna?

      2. photo of her exiting a car (sorry, no linky)

        Greatly appreciated

      3. I always refer to her as Skeletor. She looks like Skeletor and she’s always angry. I don’t know how anyone finds her attractive. Hell, she has man hands!

      4. Coulter seems / looks like Cher’s older sister. She had a wilder youth (and it still shows) than her singing sis, but then cleaned up and became a moral scold.

        1. “and became a moral scold”

          and became wealthy. Why do you hate free markets?

    3. Also, the ‘stache ensures that using torture on Stossel is useless.

  11. Comic Retailer Bans Grant Morrison Over Onomatopoeic Grunt

    A comics event as big as DC’s line-wide relaunch is bound to provoke some pretty extreme reactions among fans, but perhaps the most extreme came from the proprietor of Asheboro, North Carolina comic shop The Comic Conspiracy. This week, he announced on Facebook that he was boycotting DC’s Action Comics and any future projects by Grant Morrison after becoming fed up with having the writer’s “liberal agendas force fed” to him.

    So what was it that set him off? A panel in Action Comics #1 where Superman says “GD.” And no, that’s not an abbreviation. It’s just the letters.

    It is certainly and unquestionably within the rights of retailers to decide for themselves which products they carry in their stores, but this particular decision has been attracting a lot of attention, both for its angry public announcement and the reasoning behind it. According to the Facebook page, the Comic Conspiracy’s decision came as a result that the belief that the “GD” in this case was short for the blasphemous “God damn.”

    1. Aren’t comic books in general the tool of the Devil? It took this guy a GD in a panel to figure that out?

    2. To: The proprietor of the Comic Conspiracy.

      Thank you for the publicity for Grant Morrison. Per our agreement, we will pay you a commission based on every endorsement Morrison gets from a liberal blogger, and every denunciation he gets from a conservative blogger.

      Would you be so kind as to denounce our Supergirl comics as having “too much kinky sex?” We can work out another payment system for this.

      Thank you,

      1. They are “relauching” a bunch of titles with new #1s.

      2. Sorry, next time I’ll RTFP.

      3. The terrorists have won.

    3. Worst

  12. Why are hipster guys rolling their shorts up?…..le2133831/

    1. I don’t know, but that is a lot more attractive than hipsters wearing baggy pants and having them hang half-way down their asses.

      But as long as they keep the hell off my lawn, I am good either way.

      1. Last I checked, hipster dudes were wearing tight, tapered skinny jeans. And “last I checked” means a couple weeks ago when I was in San Fran. Hipster /= hiphop.

        1. I gotta say I’m not impressed by this trend for guys to wear their girlfriend’s jeans.
          Not getting it.

        2. Perhaps it is a coastal thing, then. Skinny jeans are not what they are wearing around here (DC/ Baltimore), even on college campuses. I will concede the culture here is more urban-oriented than SF probably is, however.

          1. How is it that either DC or Baltimore is somehow considered NOT coastal?

            1. Sorry about that, leaving out words adds to confusion.

              I meant, “Perhaps this is a west coast/ east coast difference, since the cultures in the cities mentioned are quite different.”

              1. STFU. Nobody cares.

    2. since im going to wburg (hipster central) next week, i’ll provide a followup

    3. Why? Because anyone can wear plain old unrolled shorts, duh.

    4. They heard rolling up shorts was going to be cool next year, and they wanted to do it before then.

    5. The over-the-knee cargo short with its strings and toggles is now relegated to those who get around on skateboards and/or live in frat houses.

      Ah, no, fuckhead. How about dads who can throw on a pair of comfortable, baggy shorts that can carry a fuckload of stuff in the pockets.

      Try getting out of the city more, you dicky-wearing dillweed.

      1. yea i didnt know that either. evidently cargos are as verboden as dad jeans. ill stick w painters pants

  13. Did anyone catch the reaction to the mile high club/terrorists?

    1. What are you referring to? I’m too lazy to look it up.

      1. Couple goes to bathroom to join mile high club. Passengers shit themselves when couple takes too long to get out of the bathroom, assume they must be terrorists. F-16s scrambled, couple led off in cuffs. Ta Da. America. Fuck Yeah.

        1. It is way overreaction (scrambling fighters, FFS), but still, they picked a really stupid day– a day when air passengers are probably on edge a lot more than usual due to the whole terrorist alert thing this weekend– to do something pervy in the bathroom.

          1. I don’t know – airplane bathroom sex is probably 10x as hot on 9/11 as on any other day.

            1. “Finish soon or F-16s will blow us out of the sky” is a lot of pressure.

              1. Is that an air to air missile in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me?

        2. I saw that movie. It was a bong, not a bomb.

        1. At the end of the news report, the nimrod anchor states, “It was reassuring that the fighter jets were there”. WTF? Reassuring to whom? Not to anybody aboard the plane looking out the window I’ll bet.

          1. look mommy, the fighter planes are here to help

      2. I don’t think America has that high a building. Oh, wait…

  14. Who asked Bono to be an American?…..ives/41997

    1. While I find Bono himself to be rather pretentious in an arty-farty way, I don’t think him expressing solidarity for the American people is a bad thing. He seems to have a genuine affection for the US, regardless of his politics.

      1. Yeah, and that splatter art thing he did with a tree a few years back was beyond pretentious.

      2. “He seems to have a genuine affection for the US, regardless of his politics.”

        But not regardless of his fund-raising for his favorite political causes and for his own wallet. He’s a typical boot-licking suck-up. Don’t let the hipster glasses fool you.

  15. ’12 die’ in fight between rival anti-Kadhafi groups…..04575.html

    Is this what it means to have “won” in Libya?

    1. Actually, yes that does mean we “won” in Libya. It’s probably the best outcome we’ll see.

  16. Animals burn American flag. Look at the picture. Do these guys realize how ridiculous they look? I would like to be angry about this. But I can’t help but just laugh.…..bassy.html

    1. Amazingly there are people who think their message will be furthered by burning an American flag in London on 9/11. Mindblowing.

      1. The “Islam will dominate the world” signs are also very effective.

      2. Don’t expect rational thinking from Islamist nuts.

        1. True. But at least other nuts in history, the Nazis for example, dressed well. These guys look like dirty hippies or homeless people living in a dumpster.

          1. “Animals burn American flag.”

            What do you have against animals? Animals don’t hold anti-American protests. Plus, they’re tasty. Isn’t there a better insult for America-baiters?

          2. Um, two former dirty hippies became USA presidents.

    2. As an American, I can only say that they really hurt my feelings.

    3. I thought you meant actual animals did the burning. Like bombardier beetles or something. That would actually have been funny.

    4. Is that a paper flag? Did they print one out? They couldn’t even bother to buy a proper cloth one for their awesome demonstration?

  17. 7/3/2011


    Johnny Longtorso, commentor. A man barely alive.
    Gentlemen, we can rebuild him. We have the technology. We have the capability to build the world’s first bionic internet commentor.
    Johnny Longtorso will be that commentor. Better than he was before. Better, stronger, linkier.

    Tyler: We were able to save the left arm.
    Bob Morton: What? I thought we agreed on total body prosthesis, now lose the arm okay!
    Tyler: Jesus, Morton!
    Bob Morton: Can he understand what I’m saying?
    Roosevelt: Doesn’t matter, we’re gonna blank his memory anyway.
    Bob Morton: I think we should lose the arm, what do you think Johnson?
    Johnson: Well he signed a release form when he joined the force. He’s legally dead. We can do pretty much what we want to him.
    Bob Morton: Lose the arm.
    Tyler: Shut him down, prep him for surgery.

    Roosevelt: The entire outer skin will be like this.
    Tyler: Its titanium, laminated with kevlar.
    Roosevelt: Go ahead, shake his hand.
    Bob Morton: [the robotic arm extends to shake Morton’s hand, he cringes as the robot hand grips his hand hard] Ahhh, he’s got a helluva grip!
    Tyler: It’s 400 foot-pounds. He could crush every bone in your hand.
    Roosevelt: Alright, attach it to his shoulder.
    Bob Morton: [Looks right into $6M RoboTorso’s point of view] You’re gonna be a bad motherfucker!

    1. Gunwalker Explodes: FBI Hid Weapon, Tax Dollars Subsidized Murder
      …Every American, regardless of political ideology, should be livid that the FBI gave at least $70,000 of “seed money” to murderous felons so that they could buy firearms. The FBI knew these weapons were destined for narco-terrorists, and that they would be used to target not just other murderous cartels but to terrorize innocents.

      The third weapon recovered at the scene of Agent Terry’s murder that the FBI made “disappear” is an SKS carbine. Not an assault weapon by any practical definition, authorities claim that the official existence of the Texas-purchased rifle at the crime scene could have exposed an FBI informant.

      Another plausible motive for hiding the weapon is that it would be traced to a different ATF operational sector, as an early indication that gunwalking was not limited to Operation Fast and Furious in the Phoenix Field Operations area….

      RSS AMSU, Jan-Aug: 2011 second coldest in this century
      …You can see that the first eight months of 2011 were colder than the same period of 1991 which was 20 years earlier; and of course, 1998 remains the leader of the league: its first 8 months were almost 0.5 ?C warmer than the same months of 2011. At the 12th position, 2011 is out of top ten. Only Jan-Aug 2008 with ?0.013 ?C managed to be colder than the same period of 2011 among the years of the 21st century. So 2011 is helping to make the preliminary 21st century temperature trend even more negative than before; this is no bul?it, angry Al.

      Some warming may have been taking place in recent months ? because of the delayed effect of the disappearing La Ni?a a few months ago. But it may be replaced by another cooling in the coming months….

      1. I was thinking about gunwalker this weekend. There was one of those shows in NGEO or some channel about some fed who went undercover with the Hell’s Angels. He was in deep cover for like three years. It contained a couple of stories about how just when he was about commit this or that crime for the gang fate intervened and he avoided it without blowing cover.

        All I could think is what bullshit. You don’t join organized crime be it the mafia or a Mexican drug gang or a motorcycle gang or whatever because you are a good guy. Bullshit. Those organizations are about money. You get in because you commit crimes and you make them money, period. Given that there is no way that these feds from Donnie Brasco to the guy in the film, have gone into deep cover and not committed God knows what crimes that their LEOs have covered up.

        You think about it, none of the under cover work never results in any serious indictments. What sends people to jail are wire taps, RICO, and tax stuff not Donnie Brasco under cover. Really, undercover work is just an excuse for cops to go out and commit crimes and be the gangsters they really want to be.

        1. I don’t agree.

          The NY Cop who was sent undercover into the Jewish Defense League didn’t go in to commit crimes. He went in so that the NY City police would know if the JDL were to resort to terrorism (which eventually they did, murdering a couple of women in a department store with a bomb).

          In that guy’s case, he wasn’t allowed to commit crimes, but was allowed to play a supportive role so long as he didn’t make any suggestions. At one point they gave him a whole bunch of guns since the members holding the guns thought that a FBI search of theri apartments was imminent. The cop carefully took down all the serial numbers while he had them before giving the guns back after the scare was over.

          In that case, the undercover guy, who due to his reliability had become the go to guy for driving people and things from one point to another, was the one who was able to tie everything together, able to thwart one or two bomb plots/assasinations by either calming the members down or by giving a discrete head’s up to his superiors in the NYPD, and gave critical testimony/photographic evidence that broke the back of the JDL as a terrorist organization.

          The difference with Gunwalker, of course, was that there was no overarching plan to prosecute anyone. The guns were going where the Feds had no jurisdiction.

          Incidentally, the NYPD guy was there when the ATF infiltrator showed up. His verdict of the ATF’s clumsy attempts?

          “My approach into the JDL was a slow seduction. The ATF’s was more like a forcible rape.”

          Apparently the aTF guy showed up and immediately began trying to amp things up, suggesting targets and how he could build bigger bombs, while the NYPD guys were trying to slow things down.

          The other funny thing was that the NYPD had two undercover guys in the JDL. Neither of whom knew the other was a cop, but amusingly both of whom became friends within the organization because they both saw in each other a kindred, non-crazy spirit.

          1. Dude. The JDL is not the mafia or the Hells Angels. It is mostly a bunch of people talking shit and maybe a few people committing crimes. You can easily be a hanger on in an organization like that. You can’t be in the mafia. Talking doesn’t get you anywhere. You have to commit crimes and you have to earn money. Totally different situation.

            1. That is a good point.

              But, I should point out that not everyone participating in the mafia’s activities is engaged in stealing or beating people up; like any violent organization, you have soldiers, and you have support troops.

              I think I have a more nuanced view than you do. But, in the case of the scumbags who go into the ATF, I won’t argue. They should have been disbanded after prohibition was repealed and been forced to get real jobs instead of gangbanging while on the dole.

              1. The Soldiers bust heads. I think the under cover guys that are doing motorcycle gangs and other hard core criminal organizations are just out committing crimes. I bet there are hundreds of crimes committed by undercover cops that we never hear about.

                1. Oh, I agree with you about motor cycle gangs. The members of the gangs are like “made men” in the mafia. One doesn’t get into the inner circle of trust by being a nice guy.

                  My understanding is that the gangs have a large number of affiliates whom they use in a support role, but keep in the dark about the nasty stuff.

                  I could see a cop infiltrating a repair shop run by the Mongols without committing illegal acts (other than harvesting parts from stolen cars).

                  But you don’t get a Mongols jacket without proving yourself by doing very nasty shit.

                  1. BTW, John, I hope you feel better soon.

                  2. I work for Dick Jones! DICK JONES!

        2. I always assumed undercover cops were able to fake committing crimes by showing up with money that had been seized previously, then marked in some way to track its movements. Is this not the case?

          1. I am sure some of that happens. But criminals are a little smarter than that. It is not like they are not aware and paranoid about undercover cops. So I think they have to do more than just show up with a bunch of money.

            1. Wait a minute. The guy who is helping me plant my bombs to overthrow the Federal Government told me that if you ask an undercover cop three times if he’s an undercover cop, they have to tel the truth.

              So why would anyone be worried about undercover cops? The interview process that guy set up takes care of everything… After we fingerprint them and take their picture, we ask them three times, and everything is fine. 😉

              1. If you were running some sort of criminal superorganization and you figured out that a cop was trying to infiltrate you, what would you do?

                I definitely wouldn’t kill the guy.

                I’d use him to push false intel on my opponents, the way the CIA does.

                Of course, that would be AFTER I informed him that he was being “made”, and that our group had a super-extra-secret initiation ceremony that would make him one of the inner elite. The ceremony would involve him blowing a donkey.

                How bad do you want that commendation, Officer?

                1. That would be the rational strategy, Mafia Planner, but like most organizations the Mafia doesn’t always act rationally. As the name in the original Sicilian dialect suggests, Mafia men’s pride drives them to do unprofitable things.

              2. You would be surprised how many otherwise intelligent people believe that a cop can’t lie to you if you ask him directly if he’s a cop. I usually walk them through the logic and how undercover police work could exist with that handicap. I mean, just ask everybody teh question and presto! No undercover cops infiltrate your organization, right?

        3. I have to agree with John here. Most undercover cops are scumbags. Most drug dealers that have been busted in the past. Will tell you that the undercover cop pushed them to make a bigger deal then they ever had done before. So the cops could make a big drug bust for the media coverage. They will also tell you that the reason they trusted the narc was because the narc did drugs along with everyone else.

    2. I’ll buy THAT for a dollar!!!

  18. And nothing else happened.

    That is all.

    1. Go Lions!

      1. Dammit.

        1. Gawd, losing to the Lions – how humiliating.

          1. At home, too.

    2. As a Steelers fan, I’ll trade you a fourth quarter meltdown against a non-conference team for the worst opening day beatdown in 20+ years to a divisional rival.

      1. And I thought maybe the Ravens’ window had closed. Yeah, the whole lose the Super Bowl and suck the next year myth is apparently real.

      2. You misunderstand.

        I’m not a Cowboys fan. I’m a Dolphins fan, and watching Gangrene get a win because the Cowboys choked in the 4th quarter (or for any reason really) makes me want to punch Tony Romo in the face.

        1. Apparently the Cowboys had never before lost a game where they led by 14 or more points in the 4th quarter.

          Thanks to Retard Bum Tony Romo, the Cowboys are now 246-1-1 all time in such situations.

          If you took all the games where the Jets needed miracle comebacks in the last ten minutes to win in the last three years and make them .500 in those games, they’re barely a winning team.

          I can’t decide if that means they’re great, or merely have had a run of good luck and will suck again any day now.

          I’m torn. If you’re actually a good team, you should, you know, win a few games first whistle to last whistle once in a while. But then again, if you’re a good team, you can come back late.

          1. There is a simple way to answer your question. Name another team in history that won a championship by just winning close games and never pounding bad teams. Can you name one? I cant’. Unless the Jets start pounding bad teams and doing something besides winning close games, they are no threat to win a championship.

            1. 2007 Giants didn’t win any games by more than 20 points, and only 2 by more than 13.

              1. Which comes in sooo handy when dealing with still bitter Patriots fans.

              2. Yeah, that’s a pretty good example.

                They weren’t that good a team, but they got hot at the right time, had some luck, and got a miracle catch, and they got to win the big one as a result.

                So that can happen.

        2. Don’t worry, I’m sure you’ll feel worse after tonight’s game.

          1. No. Because I don’t expect to win. A win would be great, but my only expectation is that they compete hard and are in the game late.

      3. I was at that game. It wasn’t the afternoon I had in mind.

      4. The Browns’ streak of losing to rookie Bengal quarterbacks making their first start continues. I’d be ashamed if I was capable of any more Browns-related shame.

        1. I have a good friend who lives in Cinci and is a Steelers fan. I can only imagine that he is taking merciless hell right now form his Bengals fan coworkers.

      5. My consolation is that I didn’t bother to watch. I think I’ll be doing that a lot this season.

        1. I didn’t watch, either because AFN wasn’t showing it. I can’t decide whether I’m lucky or not.

          The Browns have better fans than they deserve.

    3. Actually, I have loved the Romo era, mostly because I hate the Cowboys. And that is mostly because of all the “America’s Team” bullshit and the media slurping their cock constantly.

      See, before the Romo era, the Cowboys were just sort of bad, with shitty QBs (remember when they brought in that Yankees guy who was supposed to have played where Jeter did like he was a big deal, and he SUCKED?). But the Romo era Cowboys have mastered the art of choking, ever since that fucked up kick placement in that playoff game.

      Also, interesting observation: Jerry Jones is a terrible owner. The only championship they won under him was right after he bought the team, with Aikmen and those guys. So why he is one of the more powerful NFL owners in the ownership circle is mystifying to me.

      1. The NFL isn’t about winning, at least at the owners’ level.

      2. JJ is a creep, but he knows how to make money. And since all this football talk is interrupting the politics, let me just add that Al Gore is a lot like JJ.


    Here is your daily Apocalyptic treat piece. I think to knock out the whole country, you would need a 10 megaton or larger weapon in space over Kansas. I don’t see the Iranians coming up with that much less being able to launch it without the US knowing about it and massively retaliating before it even went off. The more likely is the infamous cargo ship that fires the missile in the air over New York. Because of the curvature of the earth, that would not take out the entire country no matter how big the weapon. And if you only have a Hiroshima 15 kiloton bomb, you probably could do more damage just setting the thing off on the ground in a city. So I think this is a bit overblown.

    1. So I think this is a bit overblown.

      No doubt, but that doesn’t drive pageviews, etc…..

      1. honestly, EMP? Look, the largest threat from an EMP is more an energizing affect on the grid. There already exist safeguards for this (they could probably use some improvement). Note the US primary grid vs. Canada about 10 years ago when the solar flare hit. Canada = dark for several hours, US = no problem. And a flare is MUCH farther reaching than a nuke. Anyway, power grid aside, the US comm network is pretty fucking robust.
        – First almost all transport of any significant distance is now fiber, no problem there (repeaters and op/amps maybe but ill get to that).
        – Second, most equipment used today is very well internally shielded. It has to be when you put 12 60amp -48vDC feeds into 1/3 of a rack. These boxes today are hard core.
        – Third, diversity of tech is deep. We have many different options for delivery and transport in use. To lose all of them is unlikely.
        – Fourth, the fucking elevators at my building are merely one example of the myriad farad cages in modern construction. It aint the concrete its the rebar that gets ya.
        – And finally all, and I mean every, CO/MHE/POP that operates in the US needs to be NEBS compliant meaning dual feeds, battery backup, diesel generators, shielding, etc.

        Being in this industry I have though about this a lot and come to the conclusion it would be a real bitch to shut down US comm for any extended period of time.

        1. Granted that being said…if it were to happen it would be caused by a Sprint contractor and a backhoe.

        2. bring back vacuum tubes! /sarc

  20. Tim Pawlenty endorses Mitt Romney for president.

    Can robots yawn?

  21. Tim Pawlenty endorses Mitt Romney for president

    And most of his 14 supporters throw their support behind Romney…

  22. “Morton Ellis, 69, said he fell asleep after parking his wheelchair on the porch of a vacant Hooters to escape the rain.”

    Mighty big hooters to block the rain…

    Read more:…..h-from-man‘s-face-in-‘vampire’-attack#ixzz1XkJsNG2c

  23. I only wish a 22-year-old woman would attack me.

  24. I like the headline from that Slate article about Pawlenty. He’s obviously running for VP. I called this as soon as he dropped out of the race, although I thought he would endorse Perry, since he’d already been attacked Romney, and since it seemed like Perry had a better shot at the nomination. But yes, of course Pawlenty is a shallow opportunist with zero principles.

  25. Does this mean no Colts blogging from Balko?


    Great post on DOJ and its general uselessness at prosecuting hackers.

  27. The BBC link on the French nuclear plant accident appears to have been edited about 25 minutes ago. It now reads, “There was no risk of a radioactive leak after the blast…”

  28. Latest CNN poll: Perry 30, Romney 18, Paul 12, Bachmann 4. Seems Bachmann is imploding, but of course the media will not make this into a 3-way race.

    1. The Perry/Romney or Romney/Perry ticket meme is being shopped. Killing Bachmann by minimalizing her coverage was inevitable. No outsiders allowed.

  29. So, we’re not going to discuss Krugnuts making a total ass out of himself this weekend?


    The classiest part was disabling comments, so that no one could call him out on being such a total asshole.

    1. The funny thing is that this was the closest I have ever come to agreeing with Krugman about anything.

      It was really the wrong day for it, though.

      1. Y’know, I look at it like the Big Lebowksi. “You’re not wrong, Walter, you’re just being an ASSHOLE.”

      2. It is histrionic bullshit. Nothing the US did after 9-11 was anything any other country would have done. Kruginuts may not agree with them. But the actions were not so beyond the pale as to take away the country’s right to feel aggrieved by the day.

        In order for what Krugman’s saying to be true, the US would have had to have rounded up and murdered every Muslim in America or nuked seven or eight countries or otherwise committed atrocities beyond the pale of any reasonable response by a national state. And sorry, but invading the country that harbored the perpetrators and invading another country that we had effectively been at war with for ten years doesn’t cut it.

        1. I didn’t think that was what he was saying.

          I can acknowledge that it’s pretty likely that any country would have gone to ape shit war under the same circumstances.

          But would another country have done that treacly “America’s Mayor” shit like was done with Giuliani?

          Would Great Britain, for example, just clapped louder when Bush played dress up on Mission Accomplished Day? Or would they have laughed?

          I thought Krugman was talking about the fairly dingy and pathetic sort of pseudoheroes we decided to declare in the wake of 9/11.

          1. Krugman says this

            The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame.

            He means everyone should be ashamed over 9-11 now because of what we did in response. And that is complete bullshit. Nothing that happened after 9-11 justifies that. For 9-11 to be an event of shame, like the Reichstag fire or the Kirov assassination, the US response would have had to have been infinitely worse than it was. Sorry but “mission accomplished” posters don’t cut it.

            1. Yeah, “shame” is definitely going a bit far.

            2. Frankly, as far as international standards go, I don’t think we could be legitimately accused of overreacting. Most countries would’ve gone further still, if they had anywhere near our kind of power.

              It’s what we did domestically that is more disturbing.

              1. But still pretty mild Pro. Think about this kind of thing historically. Have we done the Alien and Sedition Acts? Have we put Muslims into camps? Have random mobs gone around lynching Muslims and burning down Muslim homes and businesses?

                1. No, it could’ve been worse, but I still think we took a step in the wrong direction.

        2. And sorry, but invading the country that harbored the perpetrators and invading another country that we had effectively been at war with for ten years doesn’t cut it.

          We were at war de jure with Iraq, not de facto. You mean “technically” not “effectively”.

          The fact that we were technically at war with them was never brought up until every other reason for the invasion was shown to be nonsense.

          I wonder, would you have supported invading Germany in 1921, since we were technically at war with them still? Would you support invading North Korea since we’re technically still at war with them?

          1. Ah, we were occupying them in 1921. And yeah, I would have totally supported invading Germany in 1936 after they renounced Versailles considering how things turned out.

            Tulpa, try for a better historical example.

    2. No class. But I wouldn’t want to imagine what it must be like being Pauli Krugnuts right now. His professional colleagues can’t take him seriously anymore. They are not going to come out say it. But you know the academic economists with whom Krugman associates have to just roll their eyes at the crazy stuff he writes. And you better believe someone as vain and hyper sensitive as Krugman knows when people don’t take him seriously. By whoring himself out to the NYT and for some short term adulation from the nutso left, he has gone from someone who 15 years ago was a well respected academic economist to a circus act. That has got to hurt. I expect Krugman to only get more crazy and more shrill as to goes on. It is not going to end well for him.

    3. I like how Krugman calls out Bush & Giuliani but not his pay masters at the NYT.

      1. Sorry but the “unnecessary war card” was maxed out paying for the Libyan adventure.

        1. libya is NOT even close to iraq’s 4000 KIA & 30,000 wounded (12,000 seriously). partisan horseshit

          1. But Libya will be soon!!!

          2. Wars are okay as long as they are small and don’t get any US people killed. Killing foreigners of course is just great because their lives don’t matter.

            Got it.

            1. get this. iraq cannot be compared to libya in blood & treasure.

              1. But for straight up illegality, it fucking wins hands down.

              2. So what? Either you believe in war or you don’t. You can’t say, war is okay as long as only brown people get killed and it doesn’t cost too much.

              3. speaking of partisan horseshit..

                1. 4000 kia, 30k wounded, & no nukes aint partisan sherlock

                  1. go team blue, boo team red herp derp

          3. The fact that cutting off your thumb while using a table saw is better than cutting off your hand, does not change the its status as a bad idea.

  30. Krugnuts making a total ass out of himself this weekend?

    9/11 was an inside job. The teabagsterdz done it.


    I see my alma mater picked a womyn to be president; what were the odds?

  31. The World’s Greatest Campaigner is speaking.

    How would the country survive without his benevolent guidance?

    1. I don’t think Kim Jong Il is on TV in North Korea this much.

    2. What’s funny is how irrelevant the president has become. You can almost hear the national yawn from his speech even now.

    3. I keep waiting for him to start up a daily show a la Hugo Chavez–he could call it “What-Up, My Bitches?”.

      The difference is Hugo can talk shit all on his own without the help of speechwriters. I’m not sure Obama’s crack team of dipshit college students could keep up on producing 5 hours’ worth of smack-rapping for him to read off of the teleprompter every day.

  32. Krugabe’s little excrescence wasn’t sufficiently coherent for me to know if I agreed with it.

  33. I don’t think anyone has linked this, but this is a pretty awesome political ad by the Revolution PAC. The professional level of these new Ron Paul ads is amazing.

  34. “An Arab Israel, a fantastic country”
    – Ann Coulter

    What drugs is she smoking?

  35. It’s funny when you nitwits deride Ann Coulter. Ha Ha. Especially when she is such an eloquent opponents against the Left’s big government and totalitarian excesses.

    So get off your fucking moral high horses and stop pretending that war is just soooo icky and immoral and and that all conservatives are the Jesus Lady (or whoever the fuck Dana Carvey played on SNL) with a hint of Stalin.

    Oh, and it was actually Clinton who began the war for regime and WMD removal in Iraq. Not Bush.

    But anyway, not to worry. I’m sure Gary Johnson will be the front runner any day now. And how high with Dr. Paul’s speaker fees have to rise before he drops out of the race? ‘Cause that’s Paul’s only reason for running. To make money.

    1. Coulter is an eloquent opponent of big government totalitarianism, while Dr. Paul is just out to make a quick buck.

      Troll, I spot thee

    2. Sounds like somebody needs a good milking.

  36. Debt-crippled Greece is being kept solvent by a ?110 billion international rescue loan package,while an agreement in July to double the bailout size has yet to be implemented. The cash lifeline,without which the country would go broke in a few weeks,is conditional on Athens meeting its ambitious savings targets.

    Can anyone parse that first sentence without entering an infinite loop?

    Greek tax collectors go on strike over reduced bonuses

    Representatives of the country’s creditors are expected in Greece in coming day

  37. Disprove what a say.

    Your insults are lame.

    So has RP ever gotten anywhere near 5% of the primary vote? No. He runs for purely egotistical reasons. He has no interest in being president.

    And as for Coulter, please give me some specifics of Ann shilling for big govt. totalitarianism. C’mon. Use your pea brains.

    1. “I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo.”

      Sounds like shilling for big government totalitarianism right there, bitch.

      1. Or dispensing tongue-in-cheek, over-the-top, red-meat rhetoric in order to make a buck. If you think she was serious, you are … something.

      2. Fluffy, other than Burlington, Brattleboro, a few streets in Montpelier, Bennington, Manchester and the intersection of Mountain Road and route 100 in Stowe, what Vermont traffic?

  38. Paul’s not doing this solely for the money. He’s got a big ego, too.

    Anyway, I love how Reason treats Paul’s anti-abortion stance like it’s such a serious well-thought out position obviously arrived at from years of reading Socrates, Derida and Plato.

    Whereas Bush, Palin, Bachmann’s anti-abortion stance: why, they’re just religious nuts!

    1. Please provide citations / sources for your assertion that RP’s “only reason for running” is “to take money.”

      If you can’t provide such proof, what shall we say of your asseverations, in general?

    2. Where did reason write about Paul’s anti-abortion stance?

  39. Hey guys, I know it’s late but if anyone is still reading: can you point me to the best economic takedowns of the “buy local” ethic (specifically as it claims to be good for local communities by keeping dollars circulating locally)? Thanks.

    1. How about takedowns of the nutty proposition that 12,000 mile supply chains and globalization raise living standards everywhere and make us all richer?

      1. I don’t think they do, but I also don’t think random statistics like “60% of dollars will continue circulating in your local community,” without any reason as to why that’s a good thing, are a good reason to encourage specific shopping behaviors. I’m not in favor of government subsidization of long supply chains, or anything else. Do I need to put disclaimers in every post that I’m an anarchist? I just also think “buy local” people are woo-woo idiots.

        1. Sure, some of them are and I have had the arguments with them to prove that point.

          Generally speaking, at least from my experiences, most of the buy-local crowd is not anarcho-free enterprise-individualism friendly.

          However, there are too many libertarians who buy the globalization cum economic heaven on earth meme without reading the fine print.

          How can trade be free if the same is captive to a 4,000 page treaty that is anything but a manifesto of free and unfettered enterprise?

          1. Generally speaking, at least from my experiences, most of the buy-local crowd is not anarcho-free enterprise-individualism friendly.

            No, they’re not, and I’m probably letting myself get worked up about something that I would be better off avoiding. And I still may.

            At this point part of what makes it tough to argue is that they are, in the words I believe of some atheist/sciencey types, “not even wrong.” The best response I can think to give is “who the hell cares if dollars stay in your ‘local community,’ since that’s an unbelievably arbitrary designation?”/”why do you hate people who live far away from you?”

          2. Oh for Pete’s sake!

            Just because the state magnanimously decides to reduce the obstacles that it raises to trade accross a border from never, never, never to mostly w/ lots of caveats and provisos (ie managed trade) doesn’t magically make such trade bad to the participants.

            1. The above was directed at LibertyMike and not nicole, BTW

              1. Free trade, strictly speaking, means free trade, i.e., you agree to sell me some item or service and I agree to buy the same from you without wasting a kopeck on treaty navigation, greasing the palms of some “free trade” bureaucrat or genuflecting to the whims of some customs / import-export of some nation state.

                We do not have free trade.

                1. The buy globally / reject buy locally meme often runs with the Walmart is universally great for the economy meme.

                2. I want you, mr libertymike, to imaqgine the following scenario.

                  I tarran, have succesfully conquered the world, and imposed my anarchocapitalist vision upon it. I have mercilessly rooted out every government, proto-government, warlord and organized crime ring, scourged them until their spinal cords glistened under the fluorescent lights.

                  And we enter an era of free trade, where people buy stuff from whomever they want, whenever they want.

                  So the inhabitants in a particular town are supplied by a rail-road from the west and east, and a highway running north-south.

                  One day, an earthquake occurs, and a railroad tunnel is damaged. The railroad starts diverting rail traffic through a smaller tunnel, and so they announce a rule that only goods below a certain density and volume can be shipped by rail.

                  The inhabitants now have to pay higher prices to get these goods trucked in (or make them in the town at astronomical prices).

                  Is that a violation of free trade?

                  1. Well, Excellency, in order to answer your question, I must first ask you:

                    What are your thoughts on the matter?

                    Seriously, let me think. Mmmmmm…..

                    Well, I must first ask you some questions or make some assumptions.

                    The railroad through which the town is accessed from the west and the east. Is it the only railroad servicing the town? Is there another railroad which services the town? Is there another railroad which services any area close to the town?

                    If the railroad is the only game in town, I assume that is the case naturally in Tarran’s anarchocapitalist world. I must rule out that the railroad has some kind of de jure monopoly. Right?

                    If so, imo, the railroad would have the right to limit the density and volume of loads. Therefore, the railroad’s action would not violate free trade.

                    However, the railroad may be subject to pressure from its customers. In fact, I would expect there to be some pressure exerted by customers to build more tunnels / lay more track, etc.

                    Besides, customers could always turn to the bus company (ies) to pick up the slack in the aftermath of the earthquake.

                    1. You are correct in your assumptions.

                      Now, Alex Ardvark, an inhabitant of the town, needs a new transformer for his factory. He is aghast to find out that the railroad, which would have charged $T 50 prior to the earthquake, now tells him they won’t do it. The truck company quotes him a price of $T 150.

                      Now, if he has the trucking company ship the transformer in, under what conditions is he harmed?

                    2. If another trucking company would have delivered the transformer at $T 125.

                      As for Mr. Ardvark’s harm, under the circumstances, there would be, imo, no cognizable, legal harm from which he could seek redress.

                      Obviously, Mr. Ardvark, like most other inhabitants of the town, have been and will continue to be harmed, in the general, overall sense, by the earthquake’s effects.

                    3. Hell, the squirrels ate my timely response.

                      Well here goes, the short version:

                      Mr Ardvark has a choice. He can do without the transformer. Build it more expensively, locally (assuming it is possible) or buy it far away and have it shipped in.

                      The truck company is doing the shipment is not harming Mr Ardvark. The Earthquake did.

                      The managed trade that the government permits is like the earthquake damaged tunnels in the above scenario, as it prevents trade that would have occured in a free market otherwise.

                      The earthquake has harmed Mr Ardvark just as the government harms us by regulating trade.

                      However, and this is important, Mr Ardvark is better off when the train can run on a reduced capacity than if the trains didn’t run at all because the earthquake collapsed the tunnels and triggered land-slides which blocked the highways.

                      MAnaged trade is better than no trade. It’s not as good as free trade, certainly, but I argue that having more options than one had before the managed trade agreement was in place, and the duties, imposts, and hassles where higher, is good thing by definition.

                      You darkly argue that having more options is not necessarily a good thing. I think this is a bit ridiculous, especially since you haven’t explained how that could be true.

      1. Tarran, that which you cite is just an opinion piece.

        Of course, any type of coerced buy-local regime is anti-liberty and should be denounced.

        However, if you tell me that outsourcing customer relations is a more market friendly and efficient move, I will call bull shit and ask you if you have factored in all costs in such a scenario.

        1. Ya buy the the things you want from the cheapest supplier.

          If the supplier A wants x dollars, and Supplier B wants x – 1 dollars, and B is able to make a profit despite shipping the stuff 1000 miles more than A did, you are making the most economically efficient purchase.

          The don’t buy stuff transported great distances meme, makes as little sens to me as the don’t buy from catholics or the don’t buy salt harvested from anything but the ocean.

          As Hayek, Mises, Rothbard et al have shown, the price system is telling you whats the best thing for you to get.

          1. Right. We wouldn’t get the same outcomes under a free market, because the price system would give us different answers without the various distortions of policy. But “buying local” would still lack some inherent magical property that made it Right. (Even if it might be cheaper more often than it is now.)

            1. Rothbard also taught us that trade is much freer without 4,000 pages of treaty, navigating the bureaucratic channels of large, unproductive, parasitic trade ministries and the like.

              1. Which has fuck-all to do with nicole’s question and your initial response to the Mises Institute piece which answers it.

                1. How can you write that my last post at 2:57 has nothing to do with Nicole’s question? My response is a good one: don’t buy the buy globalization is universally good meme.

                  Once again, the piece to which you cite is just an OPINION, unsupported by any data, be it reliable or otherwise.

                  Trade is not, nor can it ever be, “free” if the traders themselves are not free to operate outside of a treaty executed by and between statist entities, its legions of lawyers, its legions of police enforcers and its trade ministries teaming with trade tyrants and the like.

          2. There are some security aspects to a buy local scenario, since it makes you less susceptible to disruptions with the transport and communication system. I mean, if society goes all Mad Max for a while, I’d rather be in a rural area than a city.

            It makes less sense for goods that aren’t essential, though.

  40. George Washington University law students will have a new professor this semester, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

    I wonder if ‘How to legally get into a little girls panties’ is gonna be on the syllabus?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.