National Defense

Reason Morning Links: Another GOP Congressman Calls for Eric Holder to Resign, Jerry Brown Ready to Overhaul Public Pensions, Washington Cops Raid Vet's Home Over Two Pot Plants

|

 New at Reason.tv: "Policing is Too Important to be Left to the Government: Economist Ed Stringham"

NEXT: Watch a Cop Lob a Flash Grenade Into a Group of Occupy Oakland Protesters Trying to Help a Seriously Injured Man

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. Now this is definitely too soon. Think of the poor Hawaiian linkers.

    1. Is it even officially published yet? There seems to be a bug/feature that allows a preview of upcoming posts; sometimes you can see what’s coming next to the right of the “main” button.

      1. I call it Occupy Morning Links.

      2. Psst! Ixnay on the eviewpray!

      3. It’s called “The Colonel Oden Period,” which is the time between giving the Mourning Lynx to the squirrels and to us. It gives Se?or Riggs a chance to actually read the articles to make sure they factually match what he wrote.

        1. Does not work for military casualty stories.

      4. Stop giving the time travel tricks away to the peasants.

        1. Yeh! What Suki said!

    2. ahh, arent yall soo cute, playing w each other & all

      1. circle jerking is a libtoidz meme!

      2. We’re sorry you don’t have any friends to play with, Urine. Sad face for you 🙁

        1. Is it cuz he’s too fat for the see saw?

            1. I imagine that Urine looks a lot like Thurman Mermam from Bad Santa.

  2. One protester, his dog on a leash, was decked out in a papier mache dinosaur outfit. He waved a sign that said: “Greedzilla is killing the city.”

    Godzilla was not a dinosaur. Either the protestor doesn’t know his basic history or the reporter is getting essential facts wrong. (The dog represented Tokyo.)

    1. The papier mache represents failed austerity measures.

      1. and the leash is…Unions?

    2. Godzilla was not a dinosaur.

      Correct. He was a salamander.

      1. So Godzilla was an updated Mormon adventure?

    3. Apparently, there is a fetish for people dressing up as monsters and crushing cities.

      The More You Know?!

  3. “Clearly, in this case, there was no law violation that was discovered,” says Seattle Police spokesman Sean Whitcomb.

    […]

    But Whitcomb says, “Our mission is to enforce the law. We do that by gathering information of any evidence of any criminal violation. And I’d go on to say that had the officers known that, they would have spent their time doing something else. However, unfortunately, we don’t always have that luxury.”

    Yes, the luxury of calmly and without force checking the legal status of someone using medicinal marijuana in his own home. What the fuck urgency was there in this matter?

    1. Drugs. Are. Bad. Mkay?

    2. “””However, unfortunately, we don’t always have that luxury.””‘

      Yes, if they did not act quickly, who knows how much death and destruction could have been caused by those two marijuana plants!!!!!

      1. This act of kindness probably saved the vet from unspeakable PTSD misery.

        1. I see what you did there.

      2. Apparently a whole lot of damage.

        Beneath the summer skies I gaze upon the passing of the sun, the daylight dies
        Remote this wilderness, I pack myself a monster of a bowl behind the veil of mist

        Vacation here in Canada, I came to see the northern lights and I came here for the buds
        To pass this time in solitude, and to clear my head
        A clear and eerie sky, there’s an opening in the clouds, the stars are shining brightly
        From beside a lake I watch, for the dancing

        Northern lights, I spark the pipe, to get feeling right
        But the THC tears into me
        Not so fine, but the bud is kind, and the lights I find
        Now I know I’m high because lights fall from the sky
        No one can hear my cry
        [ Lyrics from: http://www.lyricsfreak.com/c/c…..00319.html ]
        The burn in my eyes, clouded vision, psychedelic surprise
        All around me the lights make their advance

        Like a great green ghost
        Stellar stalker, unfamiliar cosmic host

        Fucked with northern lights, madness, paranoia, fright
        Fucked with northern lights, this fancy bud ain’t so tight
        I fail to scream but my body’s being entered by this thing
        Glowing green orbs flight, I’m really getting fucked tonight

        Paralyzed with fear the northern lights appear
        If I’d known it’d be like this I’d have settled for a beer

        Northern lights, I spark the pipe, to get feeling right
        But the THC tears into me
        Not so fine, but the bud is kind, and the lights I find
        Now I know I’m high, I have now lost my mind

    3. The urgency of getting the adrenaline rush

      1. Why didn’t police simply knock on the door and talk to him, instead of wearing raid gear, bearing pistols and submachine guns, and breaking the door with a battering ram? So-called knock-and-talks aren’t the protocol for drug cases?even small pot cases?Whitcomb explains.

        The obvious follow-up question that no one ever seems to ask is, do you ever review your internal policies or are they set in stone? Shouldn’t a case like this trigger some kind of departmental soulsearching?

        And if my protocol is to punch you in the face when you speak and you get punched after opening your yap, does that absolve me?

        1. Oh my god, that is rage inducing. “We’re not just assholes on a whim. It’s our policy to be assholes.”

        2. It’s not even necessary to “knock-and-talk”. They could pick him up at work and then tell him that they’re going to search his house.

          Besides which, it’s a damn plant, not a bunch of quaaludes. You can’t flush the whole thing down the toilet. The destruction of evidence crap doesn’t even apply.

          So we’re back to the obvious explanation, the cops want to play cowboy. They’re getting their rocks off and they do not want to be held responsible for the chaos it creates. And the politicians are too chickenshit to do anything about it.

          1. The feds set many precedents with the David Koresh affair.

        3. And if my protocol is to punch you in the face when you speak and you get punched after opening your yap, does that absolve me?

          According to every cop ever, yes.

    4. Why does Riggs include that the cops were armed with pistols? Isn’t every American cop armed with a pistol?

      1. Punk.

      2. Actually, not all are. There are several. NYC policemen who are forbidden to carry firearms because they have been found by IA to have committed violent acts. They are also kept off the street, as they are a menace to society in general, yet union contracts keep them in place and the police department’s unwillingness to face bad PR prevent prosecution.

        So, these fucks and Andy Griffith.

        1. Is that law about domestic violence offenders losing their gun rights still in effect? Lots of cops lost their right to carry over that too.

    5. Every time I read Sean Whitcomb my brain automatically puts it together as Shitcomb. I think it fits.

      1. Unfortunately, I’m distantly related to him and it does fit.

    1. An Error Was Encountered
      The URI you submitted has disallowed characters.

      1. Here’s Restoras’ link, un-SugarFreed.

        1. I thought the first version was rather quite clever, myself.

    2. That is what you get for giving away time travel tricks to the peasants.

  4. Proof of time travel bitches

    http://rctlfy.wordpress.com/20…..me-travel/

    I’m going back in time and telling epi’s dad to pull out

  5. Over the last two weeks I’ve been traveling around China and Japan on business and can offer the following first hand observations on China’s high speed rail infrastructure and the large amount of construction going on in the areas I visited.

    First off, I spent most of this trip within a couple hundred km of Shanghai. Next time I’ll be in Beijing and Inner Mongolia so I’ll have more observations in about 2 months. In Shanghai, there is a stunning amount of construction going on. Most of it appears to be residential in nature (high-rise apartments/condos) but there is a lot of commercial construction going on in the city as well. Talking with a native of Shanghai who also works in our Pittsburgh office, construction in the downtown area is mainly being done via government seizure of residential neighborhoods followed by commercial development. From what I could tell, this amounts to a handover to private interests a la Kelo in the U.S.

    Sadly, the parallels with Kelo continue further than just the seizure and transfer, as most of the new properties I saw (the ones that were complete with construction) were empty. Like, so empty you can see straight through them from the highways and railways as you pass by. These were not unfinished buildings, they were complete–just empty.

    From the rail side, what I observed was a mix of lovely new technology, great ride quality and seriously high speed; and empty cars, farmland and villages destroyed in the path of the rails, and general inefficiency (although the trains definitely ran on time). The tech first: the trains are clean and comfortable, with a very smooth and quite ride. This is not surprising, as it seems most of the equipment was sourced from Europe. Ridership was much lower than I expected, even at the ridiculously low prices (a first class ticket for a 1-hour ride runs less than $30 US, and the coach tickets are super cheap). I saw no cars that were more than about 30% full, even at rush hour times. The government subsidies must be crazy, to keep this thing in operation with such low ridership.

    My general impression of the massive infrastructure “investment” going on in Chinese cities is this: well established cities like Shanghai look great in their cores, but as you go to the edges, or to more recently developed urban areas in other cities, there is a breakdown: tons of new construction, but poor maintenance. Things that could have been built no longer than 3-5 years ago are in stages of neglect that would embarass Detroit. The Chinese obsession with development and progress seems to miss the idea that someone has to take care of the nice shit after it’s built.

    On a final note, the labor inefficiencies I saw are really striking. I saw one or two automatic road sweepers, for instance, but dozens of people with traditional bamboo brooms and shovels formed the bulk of road cleanup efforts. Hotels are massively overstaffed, as are the train stations. It seems the Chinese government is willing to subsidize massive inneficiencies in exchange for high employment rates to keep people happy and not actively protesting. Of course the problem with this is that these resources are not available for tasks that would make sense to businesses trying to serve the demands of a market.

    1. Sounds like pure GDP massage.

    2. …dozens of people with traditional bamboo brooms and shovels formed the bulk of road cleanup efforts.

      See? Even the Chinese understand that automation causes unemployment! Like those ATM machines!

    3. I have never been to China. But I have never met anyone who has toured the country extensively and isn’t on the CHICOM payroll who doesn’t say exactly what you are saying. It is a mirage.

    4. Yeah, everyone not named Friedman knows this. We’re just trying to figure out how far the damage will spread once China’s bubble bursts. It’ll cause the Australian housing bubble to burst for sure, and probably slow down growth across all of Asia. On the other hand, it could cause oil prices to crash again.

      1. But I like my $800 a year from BPT.

      2. if china dared to list the yaun for trading, the bubble would’ve already bursed.

    5. “”””From what I could tell, this amounts to a handover to private interests a la Kelo in the U.S.””‘

      From what I have read Chinese government owns all land. Individuals get granted ‘Land Use Rights’ but the government still owns it.

      So much for the “free market” in China.

      If I am wrong about this please correct me.

      1. I read that too. In the early 2000’s they gave private property rights that did not include land. So, the ChiCom version is more honest. The government owns all the land and everybody knows it. In the US, the government owns the land and nobody knows it until they want it for something stupid, like a mall.

      2. Our company has bought the same land in China 3 times, yes three. Basically there’s no such thing as a good property deed so once you build a plant on a property you think you own, watch out. The shakedowns are a-comin’. Also note that whether or not your plant/building has power is up to petty local bureaucrats who can show up and demand a bribe to not shut your power down at any time. When it costs $100,000 to start up and shut down a plant, not to mention lost product, they have serious leverage.

        1. Ironically, this is how Friedman thinks capitalism works as he complains about America and raves about China.

        2. Who would have thought that property and contract rights would have an uncertain legal foundation in an authoritarian and officially communist country?

          I’d feel sorry for your company but from that anecdote it seems to be run by dumbasses. They got what they deserved.

          1. Gee, you sound really smart. It’s too bad we couldn’t afford the 64-pack of crayons for your consulting fee, or I’m sure we’d have found a way to weasel around China’s bribeocracy.

            1. The best way to weasel aroound China’s bribeocracy was not to try to buy land in China. The scorpion follows its nature, you should not be surprised when it stings.

    6. I saw much of the same almost ten years ago in Shanghai. I see not much has changed other than the bubble getting even bigger.

      1. Me too. It was really weird being the only customer in the hotel bar with like five or six bartenders standing around doing nothing. They also had a woman standing outside the elevator greeting everyone who came out.

        1. My personal favorite experience was watching Chinese deliberately drop trash in the street just to have some guy in a gray jumpsuit run over and pick it up almost before it hit the ground.

          Maximum employment, minimum consideration for others, the Chinese way.

        2. Yeah, I experienced this too. As I mentioned, the labor inefficiencies are crazy.

    7. I saw no cars that were more than about 30% full, even at rush hour times.

      Next up, Japan. You will not see this. Bonus points if you get above 200% capacity.

      1. The only time I heard of that before was watching an old movie with my dad. Sgt. York maybe? A soldier was a “pusher” in NYC and York thought they were steam trains under the city.

      2. I did ride regional trains in Japan and found they were much more fully utilized than those in China, but maybe more like 80-90%. I did not ride light rail in Japan…mostly taxis or private cars for local transport. The rail lines through Osaka – Kyoto were well utilized but not 100%. The line up the west coast (to Fukui) was more lightly populated with riders. I did not ride rails in or around Tokyo, so I didn’t experience the “pusher” phenomenon.

    8. Are you Simon? This sounds like his newsletter.

    9. The Chinese obsession with development and progress seems to miss the idea that someone has to take care of the nice shit after it’s built.

      It’s cultural. I’ve been in $5 million houses, furnished with $500 worth of K-mart furniture. A Hello Kitty bed sheet as a living room curtain. Cardboard covering deferred maintenance, plastic shopping bags stuffed around window openings. It may be stereotypical, but it is typical.

  6. Defense industry to Congress: Cutting defense spending will put over a million Americans out of work.

    Bunch of welfare queens.

  7. State Dept. spends $70K on Obama books

    Apparently, they use Dreams From My Father to “broker talks on important foreign-policy matters.” This shit gets more unreal every day.

    1. I always thought Obama was GW Bush’s third term, turns out he’s GHW Bush’s second term. He’s continued his policy of filling a foreign nation with his vomit.

    2. Oh, knock it off! I’m sure the State Department has a few of my books around, too.

      1. Little red books, little green books, books is books.

      2. I KNEW IT!!!

  8. Defense industry to Congress: Cutting defense spending will put over a million Americans out of work.

    Because that is the true purpose of defense spending, after all; keeping people employed building all that hardware.

    1. The other thing that will be used against cuts will be talking about the military personnel who will lose their jobs. I was in the US military and you are expected to lose your life if necessary in the interest of the USA so losing your job does not seem to be asking much.

    2. According to leftwingers, that is the purpose of all economic activity. Let’s see if they change their tune on cutting defense spending now. After all, they love them some stimulus and this is no different.

      1. We’ve already seen it. When the base closures started in the 90s all the liberal pols fought for their local bases like Mama Bears defending their cubs.

        1. We’ve already seen it. When the base closures started in the 90s all the liberal pols fought for their local bases like Mama Bears defending their cubs.

          There was some suspicion that the reason Lowry AFB was closed was to stick it to lefty harridan Pat Schroeder, since it was in her district.

          And yeah, Dem congressmen luv them some military spending when it happens in their district. Martin Heinrich was crowing about the road construction that took place at Kirtland recently since it was done with stimulus dollars, and fought tooth and nail to keep the 150th FW operating there even though they were losing their planes and thus, their mission.

          1. It’s pragmatism in politics. Unless a pol is truly driven by an ideological principles they will defend their constituents government funded jobs. Liberals generally are not that committed to being anti-war that they will go against the big government aspects of military spending when faced with a large number of unemployed constituents.

    3. Won’t anyone think of the [foreign] children?

      Who’s going to bomb them if we cut our defense spending?

    1. Paul often makes such detours into the strange or indefensible. The newsletters he put out in the 1980s and 1990s showed a penchant for crude bigotry against blacks (“animals”) and gays. Paul disavowed the offending passages, claiming he never saw or approved most of them ? an implausible excuse for a publication carrying his name.

      Way to push the Paul hate meme, Chapman. Typically pro-establishment.

      1. an implausible excuse for a publication carrying his name

        Regularly done by celebs selling their name for money. Do you really think they all use the products they endorse?

        Not saying its a good thing, but it isnt at all “implausible”.

        1. A politician’s career is based mostly on his/her opinions. You’d think he’d not be such an idiot to give his name to the top of a publication of opinions that do not express his own.

          1. Or at minimum make all of the writers include by-lines so people don’t think he wrote everything himself.

  9. Why Politicians Lose So Much Money Trying To Pick Winners
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/ji…..k-winners/

    The more industries politicians become involved with, the bigger the losses. In Britain, for instance, economist Alan N. Miller reported that “In aggregate, the performance of nationalized industries was below that of the private sector?[nationalized] industries’ total return on capital was close to zero?Customer satisfaction with the services and products of nationalized industries was often low?employment costs per employee in the large nationalized industries increased faster than the national average, without equivalent increases in productivity?Nationalized industries were characterized by high costs, high prices, low productivity and inefficient use of resources.”

    1. Yet more bailouts for irresponsible people. Why am I not surprised?

      Why do so many responsible people put up with this shit?

      1. Oops. That was meant for the student loan post below…

  10. broke down the door of a Desert Sheild vet and threw him to the floor. His crime? Growing two pot plants, for which he had a medical marijuana license.

    As long as they thanked him for his service and said they’d pick up his check the next time they see him in a restaurant, Sean Hannity is ok with this.

    1. He doesn’t know how lucky he is.

    2. I’m sure dunphy protested the raid before he participated in it, and then congratulated himself at how noble he is since he refrained from shooting the guy’s dog.

      1. Dogs saved or created.

      2. Speaking of which, where is Dunphy anyways?

        1. Lifting weights and listening to Rage Against the Machine.

      3. I’m sure dunphy our resident mall cop protested the raid before he participated in it, and then congratulated himself at how noble he is since he refrained from shooting the guy’s dog.

    3. He must have been making a killing on that weed or they would not have bothered him.

  11. The IBR Student Loan Repayment Scheme is a Disaster
    http://www.mindingthecampus.co…..yment.html

    The Income Based Repayment (IBR) program, which took effect in 2009, is designed to lighten the student-loan burden for some students. The basic idea is to limit monthly payments to less than 15% of disposable income. If a student makes these payments for 25 years, any remaining balance is forgiven, meaning that taxpayers essentially pay the rest off. President Obama just announced his intention to lower this to 10% of disposable income and 20 years of repayment before forgiveness. These proposed changes, as well as IBR in general, are bad for the following 6 reasons…

    1. Let me be clear, there is no level to which I will not stoop to attempt to buy votes with taxpayer’s money.

      1. so no change after all ?

    2. Do they still use the forbearance and other options if you are unemployed or can’t pay? I did that when I was un or underemployed, and they waived all payments for a while. Dunno what changed…

      1. yup they still have that – but that just deffers the payments. Thsi plan just writes off yoru debt outright and makes the taxpayers pick up the tab.

    3. The extent to which this program is already fucked up will surprise nobody. It is chock full of bullshit handouts to public sector “workers”. They get to pay that 15% for only 10 years, and the remaining amount forgiven is not taxed like income, unlike all the other peons that only have the 25 year pay plan. Check out example 5 for a full display of the insanity.

      The example is equivalent to someone taking out a 60,000 interest only mortgage, paying for 10 years and then getting the house tax free.

      Bottom line is that these OWS folks need better accountants to find these loopholes that were written expressly for them by the economic illiterates in Congress.

    4. I didn’t realize there was a 15% of income limit; in light of that, I can’t see why any change to the status quo would be desirable (except to a politician looking to buy the votes of foolish, greedy students and former students).

    5. Yet more bailouts for irresponsible people. Why am I not surprised?

      Why do so many responsible people put up with this shit?

    6. I think what Obama is hoping will happen with this is that, since the government is now the primary lender on these and assumes all the risk, is that enough interest will be paid in that 10-year period that the government won’t end up taking too much of a bath when the loans are due for forgiveness. I’ve noticed that after nearly ten years, I would have paid a combined amount of interest and principle that was pretty close to the amount I borrowed for all my schooling combined.

      The moral hazard is that 1) if the government is actually going to take a huge loss on it anyway, why not just do a blanket jubilee and get that $1 trillion of debt off of people’s backs right now, when they actually need the money; and 2) how do you compensate people were WERE responsible and either took out no debt for college or paid off their loans before the 10 year window?

      Obama’s idea is so intellectually dense I have to believe only an academic could have come up with it.

  12. Private owners of Greek bonds will “accept” a fifty percent writedown on their investment.

    Yeah. They accepted that in the same way that a mugging victim accepts handing over his money to the mugger. Oh well, anyone who would loan money to a government in this day and age is a complete idiot anyway.

    1. I think you’ve got it all wrong – shouldn’t they be losing it all? It seems like they’re “accepting” a smaller loss in order to be partially bailed out.

      1. Yeah, if you were idiotically investing in Greek junk bonds, this should not really be much of a surprising outcome. The metaphor above of a “mugging victim” only applies if private bondholders were forced to make stupid investments in the first place.

      2. So the German taxpayer is the actual mugging victim.

    2. Curious, does this mean that “public” owners are not taking a 50% haircut? Who might these “public” owners be?

      1. The largest holder of Greek debt, the ECB. And who can bailout the lender of last resort?

        1. That’s convenient – so the ECB buys a bunch of Greek debt from the French/German banks that held it, doesn’t take a haircut, screws the “private holders”, and uses tax money from the northern EU members to finance the whole thing? All without any recourse on the part of the taxpayers in those countries? I think the fuse has been lit – in 6 months the whole thing blows.

        2. The US Federal Reserve, of course. If we don’t, IT WILL BE EVEN WORSE!!!!

    3. They have to accept it. If they don’t do it “voluntarily” then the holders of the CDS’s can collect on the technical default and all hell breaks loose as the bets on top of bets start to unwind. Sound familiar?

      Coincidentally, the big US banks have large CDS exposures on European debt, estimated to be somewhere between 1.5 to 2 trillion dollars.

      1. …the big US banks have large CDS exposures on European debt, estimated to be somewhere between 1.5 to 2 trillion dollars.

        QE4, 5, & 6, anyone?

        1. The Fed’s discount window is going to be busy this year.

    4. Giovani De Medici in the 1300s understood this. He told his sons, never lend to the king cause he doesnt have to pay it back. Lorenzo, (100 years later) didnt listen and the De Medici banking empire fell.

  13. Elon Musk: SpaceX Could Dump NASA if Contract Doesn’t Change
    http://www.popularmechanics.co…..=pm_latest

    Today, leaders of private space companies testified before a congressional committee on their relationship with NASA, and they weren’t happy: The space execs say the contract NASA has written to cover their crew-carrying spacecraft is too vague, too intruding, and too slow?and one of the biggest players threatened to drop out altogether.

    1. Awesome. NASA’s suckage is being exposed by the efficiencies of the market.

    2. Nice. And it’s not NASA per se, but the whole culture of federal government procurement where the government expects first-rate service at rock-bottom prices. Kudos to Musk for not putting up with this. Many companies would have just rolled over to accommodate the government and then over-billed them; that’s how defense contracting works.

  14. Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) is the fourth GOP congressman to call for Attorney General Eric Holder’s resignation over Operation Fast and Furious.

    Since Holder doesn’t have Marc Rich money to buy a pardon, he should probably get out while the getting is good.

    1. Life’s been good to him, so far…

  15. “‘Racist’ Halloween costumes stir debate.”

    An Ohio student group’s campaign has started a firestorm of debate in Canada and abroad over whether wearing Arab, Spanish and other ethnically inspired garb is proliferating stereotypes and feeding racism.

    The campaign, by Ohio University’s Students Teaching About Racism in Society (STARS), features posters headlined “We’re a culture, not a costume.” Underneath the line, “This is not who I am, and this is not okay” are students of various ethnic backgrounds holding up photos of people wearing blackface, or dressed up as natives, Geisha girls or people depicting “terrorists,” for example.

    1. “We’re a culture, not a costume.” Underneath the line, “This is not who I am, and this is not okay”

      Great, now my plan to dress up as a humorless asshole is also going to mocking other ethnicities. Touche, STARS.

      1. Wear a loud shiny shirt and flashy tie with your suit and go as a K-Street lobbyist.

    2. New Westminster, B.C., blogger Jarrah Hodge, a UBC graduate in women’s studies and sociology, said…

      Aw who cares.

    3. You mean like white people with dreadlocks?

      1. no, they mean juggalos.

    4. It’s so I can’t even go out on Halloween anymore, the stereotyping hurts so much. Also, braaaaaaaaains.

      1. So wait, let’s think about this. If you dressed up as a Nazi, would you be offending Jews or Germans?

        1. Ask Rich Iott.

        2. In college, I want cheap and drew a swastika on my forehead and went as Charles Manson.

          I kinda offended myself with that costume.

    5. Right on! We’re a culture, not a costume.

    6. This message is all over the map:

      1. The guy dressed as a terrorist? That’s an identifiable trope from pop culture, specifically the past ten years. Why should the Arab kid be offended that someone dressed up as a terrorist? Because last I checked, Radical Muslim terrorists are not part of the Arab “culture.” So what is the message here?
      2. The girl in blackface is bad-news-bears, but even then, she is dressed up as Lil’ Wayne, not a “black person as stereotype.” Again, are black people claiming that Lil’ Wayne represents black culture, and therefore any depiction of him is a mockery of their culture? Mixed messages. Ditto with the geisha.

      If someone dresses up as an American cowboy, am I supposed to be offended because “that’s my culture”?

      So dumb.

        1. Sometimes I think the yutes of today don’t have enough to worry about. I mean, you would think they would have better things to worry about what with their future being mortgaged and all (and at least I give some props to the OWS people for that, even if I think they are idiots for how they are going about it), but when I see so much attention paid to petty shit like this, it kind of makes me wonder.

          For Great Social Justice!

        2. That’s hilarious. And someone already did Sarah Jessica Parker with a costumed horse!

        3. The young ethno-representatives in those posters look so very sad. I think in those moist eyes I see a teardrop forming, so perfect in its heart-wrenching political correctness as to rival the legendary Crying Indian.

      1. Two years ago I dressed up as Cormano. Who’s more racist here, me or the Japanese?

        1. The Japanese get a pass here because, well, they’re a minority here.

          You, on the other hand…

      2. If someone dresses up as an American cowboy, am I supposed to be offended because “that’s my culture”?

        I wonder how many of those Phaggot Striver Poors think dressing up like a hillbilly is funny.

    7. Those people pictured should reach behind them and pull out the sticks that are lodged so far up their asses.

    8. A transparent ploy by Charlie Sheen to sell more of his masks.

    9. The LOL part is that a geisha IS a costume, because it’s part of an actual performance.

    10. “This is not who I am, and this is not okay”

      If it is not who you are, why are you identifying with it so closely as to be offended by it?

      And seriously, geishas? It was a job (one associated with a certain culture), a sexy nurse’s costume should be just as offensive.

  16. Why Sex Is So Important to Us!
    http://shine.yahoo.com/channel…..s-2591452/

    * Men who have sex three times a week can decrease their heart attack and stroke risk by 50 percent.
    * Women who enjoy sex tend to live longer than those who don’t. Great sex makes your body feel about two to eight years younger! This is the same for men who have 150 to 350 orgasms per year (compared to the average of once a week).
    * Orgasms appear to help decrease general pain.
    * When you increase sex from once a month to once a week, it’s the happiness equivalent of adding $50,000 to your income for a typical American.

    1. * When you increase sex from once a month to once a week, it’s the happiness equivalent of adding $50,000 to your income for a typical American.

      I wonder how they scientifically determined this.

      1. Half the researchers used the grant money to buy hookers and the other half used the grant money to supplement their incomes.

      2. Because scientifically we know sex is worth $1,282?

        1. so hookers are a bargain, then?

          1. duh.

            Standard economics, guys wouldnt pay the price if it wasnt a beneficial trade to them.

    2. Men who have sex three times a week can decrease their heart attack and stroke risk by 50 percent.

      Uh, … please define “stroke risk”.

      1. “Cock…Fuck!”*

        *Decreases chances of stroke my ass!

    3. Fap, Fap, Fap…. OK, working on it.

      1. That does raise an interesting point. Does “having sex” mean “having sex with another person?” It would have been nice if this article had discussed the ramifications of this important issue!

        1. I’d volunteer for the study, but I know I’d wind up in the control group.

    4. So then my heart attack and stroke risk is down 150%?

    5. Women of America, if you love your husbands and want to live a long, happy life with them, you MUST bang more!

      1. I just take my chick to see Broadway shows.

    6. * Men who have sex three times a week can decrease their heart attack and stroke risk by 50 percent.

      I wonder if I can get my insurance to cover the cost of hookers and porn then?

  17. Immigration law a new embarrassment for Alabama
    By Howell Raines, Special to CNN updated 9:45 PM EST, Wed October 26, 2011

    Alabama has only one immigration-related problem of pressing importance right now. Legal Alabama residents won’t take the jobs that are unfilled, now that fearful Mexicans are scrambling back to their own country. Alabama has an estimated 120,000 illegal immigrants.

    Criticism from the business community has rained down on legislators and Bentley. Grow Alabama, a farmers’ lobby, says its members lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in unharvested crops. In a test arranged by Grow Alabama director Jerry Spencer, 25 Alabamians picked fewer tomatoes per day than one four-man crew of Hispanics. The brutal stoop labor broke down many of the 25 physically, and they quit right away. “They’re just not capable,” Spencer said.

    Corporate chicken-processing firms, the lifeblood of many small towns where Hispanic families have long lived in harmony with local residents, may close or cut production after losing a huge portion of their labor force. In urban centers like Birmingham, building contractors say their industry is stalling without immigrant workers, whatever their legal status.

    One state survey in neighboring Georgia, with its own harsh law, found that the state was short some 11,000 workers to harvest crops.

    The excuse that illegal immigrants are taking jobs from native Alabamians has been blown to smithereens.

    http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/26/…..index.html
    _
    yet another gop lie joining nationalized healthcare, death panels, gun confiscation, FEMA camps, birthers, flat earthers…et cetra, et cetra…

    1. That is because Mexicans are super humans. They are just some kind of animal capable of doing menial work that can’t be done by the higher races.

      1. Either that or the ‘test’ arranged by Jerry Spencer was a rigged load of bullshit. But that could never happen, could it?

        1. Never. Or maybe people who do a job for a living are really good at it and out perform people doing it for the first time.

          1. or there’s alotta soft fatties out there.

            1. They wouldn’t be for long if they did that.

              1. and they werent quitting before noon

                1. They would quit and Mexicans wouldn’t because Mexicans are just natural beasts of burden I guess. Racist much?

                  1. No, because “They” just aren’t quite hungry enough.

            2. no, the bama gop are the racists (the old dixiecrats after ’64) w these stupid HATEZ-me-some-mexicans laws.

              1. Try using words next time. But as best I can figure is that you think that Mexicans are better cut out for menial labor than Americans. That is pretty racist.

                1. no this worm didnt turn. the lying gop lies about immigrants taking [JOBZ] fm teh rael ‘mericunz.

                  1. I have no idea what that means after the word immigrants.

                    1. axe palin

                  2. Hey dipshit, when the Chipotle down the street got busted for hiring undocumented workers, its work force went from Latino to black literally overnight. That tells me that at least in this case, they were taking jobs from people willing to work legally.

                    1. hey chipotle-for-brains, READ the article from ALABAMA which quotes actual farmers. jeesch

    2. i love fallacies and false equivalents and no understanding of basic logic herp derpity DERP

      1. take it up w the writer & his sources fool.

        1. The writer and his sources didn’t write:
          yet another gop lie joining nationalized healthcare, death panels, gun confiscation, FEMA camps, birthers, flat earthers…et cetra, et cetra…
          You fucking moron.

          1. so point-out which of those gop contentions actually happened…or STFU lier

            1. nationalized healthcare

              1. explain how our healthcare has been nationalized under obama please.

                1. put together a cogent argument that can actually be addressed logically, please, you fucking bag of stupid

                  1. when Urine talks to himself in the mirror

                  2. it was a question, not an argument. explain how obama nationalized the US healthcare industry please.

    3. It is also funny as hell that a liberal like Raines would argue in favor of farmers to be able to hire illegals at below market wages. I bet if they paid more money they could find some Americans to do it.

      Yeah, I understand the economics of it. But liberals sure as hell don’t in any other context. The party Caesar Chavez has come a long way I guess.

      1. another lie. americans quit field labor [JOBZ] even at $15/hr…much moar than unemployment…which is another gop lie.

        1. That is only because Americans can go on welfare. Cut the welfare and they wouldn’t quit. And I am not sure what a jobz is.

          1. prove that contention cause the gop lie that unemployment paid too well is utterly exposed as a lie. prove that totally eliminating welfare would result in americans doing stoop labor in farm fields. prove it or STFU w the lies !

            1. So you think people are so lazy they would rather starve than do hard labor. I think all of human history proves you wrong. You are just a racist who thinks only the lower races can do this kind of work.

              1. prove it…in view of the lying gop lies about immigrants taking our [JOBZ]. prove it or STFU

            2. The only way to prove that would be to eliminate welfare.

              And of course Americans would do the jobs if the alternative were true poverty without an effective safety net. I bet they’d get really good at picking tomatoes too. I really don’t see what point you are trying to make here.

              1. so the welfare contention can NOT be proven & is another gop lie given the gop lies on immigrants taking our [JOBZ]…which americans will NOT do even at $15/hr. lies & moar lies

                1. My goodness, you’re tiresome. Lulz!

                  1. getting to the truth is sometimes tiresome fool

      2. It is also funny as hell that a liberal like Raines would argue in favor of farmers to be able to hire illegals at below market wages.

        You got to hand to these how well these liberal fucks hide their racism. Because you know these assholes, in the same breath that they argue in favor of farmers being able to hire illegals, would have a shit fit if you tried to bust those union goons that build those shitty fucking cars at Chevrolet that no one want to buy.

        1. not just farmers, also construction, restaurants, hotels, lawn care, & moar recently, even casinos saying TEH RAEL AMERICUNZ wont take manual labor [JOBZ]…none of which has anything to do w any union since bama is a right to eork state.

            1. Don’t try to understand the ravings of an idiot. I guess it makes sense in its own head, though.

              1. yep after the gop lies about immigrants, all that’s left is name calling & clowning. have at it

                1. No one wants you here.

                  1. like i give a rip

                    1. Everyone wishes you did.

    4. You mean statist lie? Hasn’t Obama beat Bush on the rate of deportations by a factor of 4 or something?

      1. yes obama has…which exposes another gop lie about obama being soft on illegal immigration

        1. Wow, there’s nothing you can’t blame on the Silly Party, is there?

        2. That’s right, he bad.

    5. The excuse that illegal immigrants are taking jobs from native Alabamians has been blown to smithereens.

      I don’t buy it. These fucking farmers (and consumer of their products, read: the rest of us) have been subsidized through illegal immigrant labor for years. It is simply time for them to adjust to reality. And the reality is that no one want to bust their ass on a hard job. A job that after an hour of labor, some fuck of a farmer goes, “Here, here is you $2.37.” The fact is farmers might have to pay tens of dollars an hour for these jobs. And that means food prices will rise.

      1. If you paid a fair wage, you wouldn’t need the Mexicans. They just want the Mexicans over here because they think they would vote Democrat. If Mexicans started voting in big numbers for Republicans, liberals would turn into the Know Nothings overnight.

        1. If you paid a fair wage, you wouldn’t need the Mexicans.

          I am sorry if I didn’t make it clear, but I agree with that. If you paid a good wage, we wouldn’t need Mexicans. But I think the wage might have to be like $18.00/hour. Oh, and people might expect things like having access to water, toliets, and breaks every now and then. All this would cause food prices to soar. Which, IMHO, I think ought to happen. Why should food prices be subsidized off the backs of illegal immigrants?

          1. So Howell Raines can get his free range organic chicken at a good price. That is why. And I was agreeing with you. I didn’t mean to imply I wasn’t.

          2. If you move to another country where you don’t speak the language and you have limited education and limited skills, you’re almost certainly not going to make a great deal of money. Even with a decent green card program, I doubt rural immigrant farm workers are going to clean up.

          3. Food prices would not soar. Farm labor is a very small percentage of actual food cost. A 40% rise in the cost of labor would mean a 4% rise in the end cost to consumer.

            1. because labor cost does NOT effect retail price right? right?

              1. He just pointed out that it does, moron.

              2. Labor cost is a very small part of retail food prices. You can increase farm labor pay by a large percentage and only have a small effect on the end retail price.

                1. IF americans will take the field labor [JOBZ]…but $15/hr aint enough.

                  1. I don’t know. As a part-time, second job for an office drone, $15/hr isn’t bad at all. You get your normal 40hr mentally taxing job, then you basically get paid to turn your brain off and get some exercise for a few hours a week.

                  2. but $15/hr aint enough.

                    How do you know, dumbass?

                    Some stupid “test” done by somebody with an axe to grind is meaningless.

                    Besides, the higher the individual labor cost, they more they will use mechanization to bring the overall labor cost down.

                    I’m all for letting people come here to work, especially from a border country like Mexico, but this “jobs Americans won’t do” thing is pure bullshit.

                    1. so what’s ur proof that americans will ?

            2. I wondered about that. Thanks.

      2. another lie. $15/hr wasnt enough to keep locals on the [JOBZ]…which is waay moar than unemployment or welfare. gop lies, lies, & moar lies.

        1. Maybe they will have to pay $20.00 an hour.

          1. Why should they pay $20/hr when the free market price is clearly below that.

            Expand the green card program (no quotas) and we virtually eliminate illegal immigration. At the very least, at that point, Im all in favor of shooting illegals on sight. But that is because EVERYONE (subject to background check) who wants to work in the US can.

            1. I wish the government wold get out of everything. It is hard to know what the free market price is with all the government intervention going on. It is a wonder that anyone can make a buck.

            2. I would not exactly call the current situation “free market”. More like “free market here and no free market there”.

        2. Are you seriously claiming that no non-immigrants will do farm work for any wage, no matter how high?

          Also: spell check.

    6. So why did undocumented workers go to Alabama, in the first place? Because of the farming jobs that were there. If you kick them out, they’ll be replaced by…whom, exactly?

      1. so far, no one. and guess who pays for the lost crop insurance costs?

    7. So, Americans are 6 times frailer than Mexicans? Let’s hope we don’t get into a war with them, then.

    8. Alabama’s current unemployment rate is 9.8%, or 211,079 persons.

      link

      We need illegal immigrants so Alabama’s unemployed can stay home!

  18. A tense standoff continued Thursday morning between San Francisco police and Occupy San Francisco protesters.

    Police have called on the protesters to leave Justin Herman Plaza, saying the camps pose a threat to public health.

    There’s poetic justice in the government using public health concerns to forbid Liberals from living in a green space.

    1. Even more so considering that San Francisco is notorious for letting homeless people shit in the streets.

  19. On Tyranny and Liberty
    Would the Founders approve of the nation we’ve made?
    http://www.city-journal.org/20…..berty.html

    Tyranny isn’t a word you hear often, certainly not in conversations about the First World. But as American voters mull over the election campaign now under way, they’re more than usually inclined to ponder first principles and ask what kind of country the Founding Fathers envisioned. As voters’ frequent invocations of the Boston Tea Party recall, the Founding began with a negation, a statement of what the colonists didn’t want. They didn’t want tyranny: by which they meant, not a blood-dripping, rack-and-gridiron Inquisition, but merely taxation without representation?and they went to war against it. “The Parliament of Great Britain,” George Washington wrote a friend as he moved toward taking up arms several months after the Tea Party, “hath no more Right to put their hands into my Pocket without my consent, than I have to put my hands into your’s, for money.”

    1. Would the Founders approve of the nation we’ve made?

      No.

      1. are you kidding? the founders wouldnt even understand current macro-economics or nuclear diplomacy.

        1. I think if they read up on it for a few weeks, they’d understand. They were pretty smart dudes.

          1. ur talking about the guys who wrote the articles of confederation

    2. The Parliament of Great Britain,” George Washington wrote a friend as he moved toward taking up arms several months after the Tea Party, “hath no more Right to put their hands into my Pocket without my consent, than I have to put my hands into your’s, for money.”

      Then why did they write the Commerce Clause giving the government the power to do so? /leftist derp

      1. something about ferign entanglement comes to mind /gop liez

        1. The Reason blog reaaaallllllly needs an ignore function.

  20. http://voxday.blogspot.com/201…..lapse.html

    It says something about our current state of affairs that it is known by all right thinking people that Michelle Bachmann is nuts. Yet, her and Ron Paul seem to be the only two candidates who understand just what a dire fiscal situation we are in.

    1. We are careening headlong into financial apocalypse. There will be no one to bail us out. It will be ugly when all our bills come due.

      1. It will be ugly when all our bills come due.

        Quit spreading this lie. Most is owed to ourselves, and the rest is a symbiotic relationship with our trading partners.

        1. When you wake up one day not far from now and wonder why no one will buy our debt, unless it pays exhorbinant interest, come back to me for your humble pie. Bond markets take no prisoners.

        2. Sure we owe it to ourselves on things like Social Security. When we can no longer afford that, things are going to go real well.

        3. We are we going to get all the money we owe to ourselves, smart guy?

          1. I’d threaten to drill my kneecap for the money, but then I’d have to pay for it through semi-socialized health care which I’d have to threaten to drill my other kneecap to pay for. It’s a vicious cycle!

            1. What would you be willing to do again?

          2. I’d threaten to drill my kneecap for the money, but then I’d have to pay for it through semi-socialized health care which I’d have to threaten to drill my other kneecap to pay for. It’s a vicious cycle!

  21. Downtown Denver gets five inches of snow, and it’s not even November yet. Gotta love that “global warming”.

    1. First, that is weather. And second any out of the ordinary weather event is further evidence of global warming. If it is 80 degrees in December, it is because of global warming. If it snows in June, it is because of global warming. What are you some kind of anti-science fundie?

      1. Exactly – the snow in Denver is evidence of global warming, because everything is.

        1. Or, that Al Gore was hiking in the Rockies yesterday.

      2. Well, on the assumption that global warming is happening (which it seems to be, whatever the cause), in some sense every weather event is caused by it. Not that that is really useful or interesting information. IOW, there is never a simple cause for anything in the natural world, and in some sense, everything is the cause of everything else.

    2. Just as stupid a point as when people point to the drought in Texas and say “GLOBAL WARMING!!”

      (Since most of Texas has only be occupied by non-gambolers for about 150 years, our data just isn’t good enough to know how common this is.)

      1. Texas had a devastating drought in the 1950s. The book “The Time It Never Rained” by Elmer Kenton is a great fictional account of it. He also shows how the Feds made things worse.

      2. Proof that white idiot is, in fact, white.

        Red Indians drew arbitrary lines on maps and regulary killed gambolers who crossed them (or sometimes went out and captured distant gambolers for their sacrifices).

      3. Are you trying to imply gambolers can’t keep records?

        RACIST!!!!!1!

    3. Late October snowstorms are pretty common in Colorado after a very warm Indian summer period early in the month. For a few years when I was a teenager, Halloween was typically the “first blizzard of the season.”

  22. Emma Watson channels her inner frump.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..rilyn.html

    1. I bet she’d tart-up real nice though.

    2. Where is the frumpy? I think she looks good in all those pictures.

    3. I don’t know if it’s really fair to tweak her for dressing up for a movie role. Only the rich and famous could really afford to dress glamourously at that time.

      One thing is clear, though, she looks far better with her hair long. I never liked the pixie cut that she’s been sporting–it makes women look like little boys.

  23. Heidi Klum is still hot.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..wards.html

    1. Dude she is 38. Weren’t you telling us the other day anyone over 30 is a mom?

      1. Here’s something for your spank bank.

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem…..cruel.html

        1. I don’t have a mullet fixation. And you are the one always on here claiming this or that woman looks like a mom because they are not 20. It is just a bit ironic that you now put up Heidi Klum, who is very hot, but belongs in the over 35 class.

          1. Er, uh, no?
            I claimed that one woman, who reminded me of my mom, looked like a mom.
            Sorry if I have trouble getting a chubby looking at pics that remind me of my mom.
            After seeing other pics of that same woman I can agree that she was hot in her days before she was 47, but in that original link she reminded me of my mom.

            I get the impression you’d get a chubby looking at pics of my mom.

            1. Sorry. If you don’t think Monica Bellucci is hot, your man card will have to be revoked.

              1. Perhaps you should brush up on your reading comprehension, but I’ll spell it out anyway and try not to use big words.

                In the original link you gave, the woman reminded me of my mom.

                I had never heard of her previously, so that original link was my frame of reference.

                After looking her up I agree that she was quite hot, up until the point where she reminded me of my mom.

                Sorry, but once a woman reminds me of my mom, she ceases to be chubbyliscious to me.

                Perhaps you get off on women that remind you of your mom, but I find it to be a turn off.

                1. she was in this movie called the Matrix. You might have heard of it. And if your mom looks like Monica Bellucci, I am going to have to tell you, that I would like to fuck your mom. Sorry. But damn.

                  1. She was in a sequel to the Matrix. [S]arcasmic should be envied because he hasn’t seen it.

                    1. He should. And she was in the first one too. I have never seen the sequel.

                    2. And how old was she at the time?
                      Certainly not 47.
                      Tell you what. Give me ten years and then ask me again about 47 year old women.
                      Ten years ago I thought 37 year old women were old.

                    3. I am just harassing you sarcasmic. I don’t mean to make you mad. But if your mom looks like that, I do have to ask, is she available?

                    4. No, but MNG is.

                    5. But if your mom looks like that, I do have to ask, is she available?

                      Sorry, John, but get in line.

                    6. Also: to sarcasmic, she was 39 when she was in the Matrix sequels. So probably 38ish when they were filmed.

                    7. Not to go full-MNG on this, but she was only in Matrix: Reloaded and Revolutions, not the original.

                    8. And looked damn good in Reloaded in the white vinyl.

                    9. I thought she had a small part. And you are not going MNG. Going MNG would mean copying and pasting the thread and later using it as evidence that the BATF really didn’t send guns to Mexico.

                      I must have seen her in something else because I have never watched the sequels after suffering through the first.

          2. I don’t have a mullet fixation

            But you do have chubby fixation, right?

            1. No. Sarcasmic just has an adolescent boy fixation.

              1. So says the guy who argues with MNG like he was married to him.

                1. Someone has to counter his bullshit. No one else will but me.

                  1. “Someone has to counter his bullshit.”

                    Nope.

                  2. Someone has to counter his bullshit.

                    Defend why this must be the case.
                    Please show your work.

        2. Those women weren’t attractive even when they were young. Fail.

          1. British hot. They have lower standards across the pond.

        3. “Aqua-net nostalgia”

  24. Rosie Huntington could use a meal (and what’s the deal with her mouth?).

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..dress.html

    1. At least she isn’t doing the duck lips thing. She seems to be trying to go for sultry parted lips instead. She also needs a cheeseburger or ten.

    2. Please, please, for the love of humanity, somebody give that girl a cheeseburger!!!!!

    3. I would so fuck her. You guys can have Rosanne Barr if you need some meat.

      1. I never said I wouldn’t. But she could still use a meal.

    4. That change is an eating disorder, not diet and exercise.

    5. Why does everyone go to a cheeseburger as the default? It’s the Daily Mail. Some stout, fish and chips, and a deep fried Mars bar will fatten her up.

  25. Supercommittee Dems push for stimulus to be part of deficit deal
    http://thehill.com/blogs/on-th…..can-be-met

    Democrats on the congressional supercommittee this week presented Republicans with a plan to cut the deficit that included billions of dollars in stimulus spending, aides told The Hill.

    In a private meeting of the deficit panel Tuesday, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, presented a proposal backed by a majority of Democrats on the panel that includes more than a trillion dollars in tax increases. The revenue would partially cover stimulus spending for the economy, aides said.

    1. It’s a bullshit deal and it’s going to be ignored.

      1. Of course the only deal or compromise the GOP would accept is one where there is no concessions on their stance, i.e., no compromise.

        1. New spending (i.e. “stimulus”) was not in any way a part of this super committee’s appointed task.

          1. I don’t think it was part of the deal that the government was going to stop spending money doing things. The idea is we have to find a way to live in our means, i.e., to spend less than we bring in. That doesn’t necessarily mean no spending.

            1. It means a lot less spending, since we can’t afford the spending we have right now. We’re not talking about a 5% annual deficit on top of 25% of GDP debt. We’re at 35% deficits on top of 100% of GDP debt with no end in sight. Everything needs to be up for the chopping block and nothing new should be allowed until we have gotten it under control. Compromise would be leaving a couple of existing programs in place, not a bunch of new “stimulus funds”. Tax revenues should be considered but only after spending has been slashed drastically.

              1. Sure, it strikes me that a good way to combat debt is to spend less overall, what I’m saying is that you don’t stop spending on everything. I’m against the stupid stimulus program, what I’m saying is that it’s not crazy to suggest “we want to spend money on project X and pay for it this way so it doesn’t grow our debt.”

            2. But this plan is additional even yet still more spending, on top of the usual increases that are already baked in.

    2. Do they actually get the whole deficit cutting thing? Either you cut spending or raise taxes, both of which are the opposite of stimulus.

  26. The richest Americans ? the top “1 percent” targeted by the Occupy Wall Street movement ? saw a huge 275 percent increase in income over the last three decades, according to a new Congressional Budget Office report.

    The after-tax income for the highest-income households grew the most out of any group from 1979-2007, the CBO reported. The richest 1 percent of Americans saw a 275 percent growth in household income, while the poorest 20 percent experienced just 18 percent growth.

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/s…..z1bzHXPZk0

    1. Assuming that is adjusted for inflation, 18% growth is pretty good. If they had remained stagnant or declined, I could see the problem. But they didn’t. So what if the richest 1% grew more? That is just class bigotry and envy.

      1. That’s absurd. Just the fact that everyone gained doesn’t make any deal acceptable to any rational, self-interested person. Consider if your boss asked you to work twice as much as you do know to make 1% more, would you take it? Or someone approaches you with a deal where you will make 1% of the deal and he 99%, unless he were doing 99% of the work or risk only the most supine person would say “swell!”

        1. It’s not just everyone gaining that matters to most people, it’s the shares of gain too. That’s not class bigotry, that’s normal thinking.

        2. “Consider if your boss asked you to work twice as much as you do know to make 1% more, would you take it?”

          If my boss offered me an 18% raise tomorrow, I would gladly take it. And I wouldn’t care if he got a 118% raise. You only think it is absurd because you have this childish idea that the wealth in this country belongs to the collective rather than individuals. If someone had come out in 1979 and said that over the next 30 years I have a plan to raise the standard of living of the poorest 20% in this country by 18%, that person would have been hailed as a hero. The 18% figure only bothers you because someone else got more. And that is just envy and class bigotry and no better than whining that the foreigners or minorities are taking your jobs. Hating based on class is no better than hating based on race.

          1. So if your boss asked you to work twice as hard for a 1% raise you would?

            If not why, considering you seem to think the only criteria for measuring these deals is whether everyone gains?

            Methinks you’d have another criteria…

            1. Maybe he did. Maybe he didn’t. Who said life was fair or that we always get exactly what we deserve? If I don’t like it I will go find another job. But I have no right to demand a part of his salary because it isn’t fair that we don’t make the same.

              1. Your confusing the issues. One issue is: do you have a right to demand part of his salary? Another is, would you accept a deal in which he offers to have you work twice as much for a 1% raise? If you say no, as I’m sure you will, you recognize my basic point: that criteria other than whether everyone gains is important to people in recognizing whether a deal is a good one for them.

                1. If you say no, as I’m sure you will, you recognize my basic point: that criteria other than whether everyone gains is important to people in recognizing whether a deal is a good one for them.

                  False – the criteria are the same. I reject that deal because I do not gain, at least, under an orthodox model of work. If I have to increase worse from 40 hours to 80 hours, for a mere 1%, that is not worth my free time.

                  However, what if I work an unorthodox number of hours? Maybe I only work part time, and my boss offers 1% to work 30 hours, instead of fifteen. If I have copious free time as it is, then I might consider that a fair trade-off.

                  Regardless, you are wrong.

                  1. “that is not worth my free time”

                    But how can that be? Your boat rose, how dare you think of anything else.

                    “Maybe I only work part time, and my boss offers 1% to work 30 hours, instead of fifteen.”

                    You would consider doubling your time worked for a ONE PERCENT raise? Dude, you’re more supine than Spongebob Squarepants, and he pays his boss to work.

                    1. You would consider doubling your time worked for a ONE PERCENT raise? Dude, you’re more supine than Spongebob Squarepants, and he pays his boss to work.

                      In that example, yes, perhaps. What if I spend those other 15 hours drinking soda, eating crap, and watching television? Don’t you think working would not only be a “better” use of my free time, but that I am really not losing all that much?

                      Do you know how “diminishing returns” works?

                      Look, you can choose to be deliberately fucking retarded in this, but you know you’re wrong. Just admit it. People can evaluate how much their time is worth and choose accordingly. You thought you had a super example of how “dumb” it would be to double your time worked for “only” 1%, and I demonstrated how someone could rationally choose to do so.

                      you lose. Get over it.

                    2. But how can that be? Your boat rose, how dare you think of anything else.

                      Wrong. Again. If my free time is worth more than that 1%, my boat didn’t rise.

            2. When people work together on something and a few people make out like gangbusters while most of them do not, then even if the most did better they categorically recognize this as so unfair they often are willing to give up the gains to penalize the others. This has been demonstrated in numerous behavioral economics and psychology experiments but it’s also just a part of common sense and experience.

              It’s good that everybody gained, liberals should not gloss on that. But to gloss on what I also pointed to in the study, that a handful of people made out much, much, much better than everyone else is not class hatred, it’s a recognition of basic ideas of fairness.

              And not just fairness, but utility. All things being equal a society in which more people enjoy those riches (and the choices and benefits that accompany them) is a better one than one where only a few do.

              The many can hardly be condemned for not preferring a system in which their gains are significantly lower than the handful…

              1. The many can hardly be condemned for not preferring a system in which their gains are significantly lower than the handful…

                Yes they can. It would be one thing if no one but the top 1% were doing any better or doing worse. But as long as everyone is doing better, no one has a right to claim that just because someone did even a lot better than them, they have a right to piece of that person’s property. To say they do is to say that we have a “national income” and it is up to the political process to make sure it split fairly, whatever that is.

                1. “But as long as everyone is doing better, no one has a right to claim that just because someone did even a lot better than them”

                  So again, if I approach you with a deal in which you will do 99% of the work but I will get 99% of the profits you will take that deal as long as you make one iota more than you currently do?

                  Because that is what you are (repeatedly) saying.

                  BTW-I have such a deal. By your criteria you must take it. When do you want to work out the details?

                  1. “as long as everyone is doing better, no one has a right to claim that just because someone did even a lot better than them”

                    “if I approach you with a deal in which you will do 99% of the work but I will get 99% of the profits you will take that deal as long as you make one iota more than you currently do?”

                  2. So again, if I approach you with a deal in which you will do 99% of the work but I will get 99% of the profits you will take that deal as long as you make one iota more than you currently do?

                    Again, you have a childish vision of what is “more”

                    Part of the luxury of modern living is free time. I do not “gain” by sacrificing any of my free time for the low amount you want to pay me for it. If I had more, maybe it would be worth it.

                    1. So you now admit there is at least one thing that can counterbalance making more, and that is free time available.

                      Now if only you could grasp dignity and fairness.

                    2. So you now admit there is at least one thing that can counterbalance making more, and that is free time available.

                      This is officially in the Stratosphere of Stupidity, even for you. The “free time” evaluation is still a purely economic consideration. “Is this dollar amount worth what I will have to trade off?”

                      Your “dignity” and “fairness” nonsense lacks that level of nuance. All you see is “99% and 1%”, think of it as “inherently unfair” because it is a lopsided number, and you whine about it.

                    3. That’s absurd, your free time is not just an economic consideration, unless you plan to work constantly during it.

                      There are things other than making an iota more that everyone values in deciding whether to get into an arrangement with others. The share of everyone involved in the arrangement is one of those factors.

                      Consider a “domestic partnership” in which one party does 1% of the housework and another 99%. Note that the 1% done by the slacker is 1% less the other party would have to do if they were alone. And yet I bet you can easily imagine someone backing out of that partnership on the grounds the share is not fair. Now how can that be according to your claims?

                  3. If that 1% were more money than I am making now, and assuming the job was comparable, I would take that deal in a minute. Why wouldn’t I? It is your company not mine. No one says you have to give me 50%.

                    1. If that 1% were more money than I am making now, and assuming the job was comparable, I would take that deal in a minute. Why wouldn’t I?

                      Yes, I am not following why anyone would not.

                      Except MNG, who is going to stomp his feet, hold his breath, and whine about fairness.

                    2. Great. I have an opportunity for you. You’ll have to work ten hours a week stuffing envelopes for me, I’ll take the envelopes to the distributor and I will be paid 99% of the wage, I’ll kick in 1% to you. It’s more than you make now, so you must take it by your criteria.

                      Let me know when you want to pick up the boxes of envelopes John.

                    3. Envelope stuffers, rise up against your masters!

                    4. The criteria is more than you have now, not more than you make now.

                    5. Yes, awesome, John will make more than he now does without this deal. As long as he doesn’t squander it like some hippie he will then have more.

                      I’ll have a lot more, sure, but you don’t care about that so you have to take the deal.

                    6. I’ll kick in 1% to you.

                      How much is that 1%?

                    7. This is the great thing, since you are claiming the only criteria should be whether you are better off than before then all it has to be is .0001 cents more than that.

                      When do you want to pick up these envelopes?

                    8. This is the great thing, since you are claiming the only criteria should be whether you are better off than before then all it has to be is .0001 cents more than that.

                      When do you want to pick up these envelopes?

                      I didn’t say that.

                      How much is that 1%? If it’s 1 cent, then I likely will not work another 10 hours for 1 cent. If it’s a million dollars, then hell yes send the envelopes.

                      Your suspension of context makes you stupid.

                    9. 1% of what? If the total pie is $1000 then it won’t be worth my time. If it is $1,000,000, then I’ll gladly take in $1000/hr. How much you are making out the deal is only relevant to me if I think I can negatiate a better deal

              2. The best way for everybody’s standard of living to increase is for that increase to be unfairly distributed. Sorry. Live with it, or make us all poor.

              3. MNG, as long as the worker-employer relationship is voluntary, what does it matter? If I don’t like the fact that my boss makes 100% more than me, and his boss makes 300x more than me, I can quit. But really, I don’t see why their salaries should make any difference in my life. I’m certainly within my rights to ask for more, and if they don’t oblige, I’m free to leave and can try something else that might bring me the money I desire.

                Greed has little to do with the wealth gap. Most people are acting out of rational self-interest when they take a job. The more valuable will logically try to extract as much as possible and it’s hard to fault them for that because we all would. The market finds a value and corrects it if it turns out to be wrong.

                The wealth gap has a great deal more to do with the fact that the government has so distorted the market with perverse incentives, subsidizations, socializations of risk, etc. which discourage responsible decision making, and with regulations, taxes, licensing, frivolous lawsuits, etc. that it is very difficult for low and middle class people to start businesses and plan long-term careers.

                If the structure behind the economic system weren’t so overly complex, perverse, manipulable and arbitrary, we would have a much more meritocratic society where economic progress is a function of how hard you work, instead of whether or not you have an MBA.

                1. The only time it is conceivable for you to be pissed at your boss or your boss’s boss salary is if they are so outrageous they cause the company to fold and you lose your job. At least in my mind.

              4. Hey MNG: FUCK FAIRNESS

                That is all.

            3. Where does it indicate that the lower quintile is working “twice as hard for each 1% increase? Or is that just something you made up to confuse the issue?

            4. So are you suggesting, somehow, that the poorest are working thirty-six times harder than they did three decades ago for only 18% more money?

              1. Or maybe they’re working 2^18 times harder?!

              2. My god, you don’t know what a thought experiment is, do you.

                I knew they didn’t have much thought on the right, but I assumed they at least had heard of thought experiments and what they do…

                1. What, exactly, is the point of that thought experiment? You can’t compress the entire sum of thirty years of economic and employment decisions, made by hundreds of millions of people, into a single decision.

                  1. Sigh.

                    The thought experiment is often used when someone makes an absolute statement like John’s that no one should ever negatively judge an arrangement if everyone makes more than they currently do. So all I have to do to puncture such a absolutist, conceptual claim is to come up with a concievable counterexample. It need not be practical and since it is countering an absolutist position it can be as heavily weighted as I want (hence the 1-99 split).

                    1. So all I have to do to puncture such a absolutist, conceptual claim is to come up with a concievable counterexample. It need not be practical and since it is countering an absolutist position it can be as heavily weighted as I want (hence the 1-99 split).

                      Except because your example was completely devoid of context and failed to take into account whether a reasonable person may sacrifice free time for additional monies, context-dependent.

                      This is Rawlsianism run amok.

                    2. Oh no, the free time thing doesn’t matter.

                      Here’s the thing. Let’s say you have plenty of free time, remember I conceded that. You have plenty. And all I’m going to ask is that you do all the work in this enterprise, which is only an hour a day. All the work. I’ll just set the envelopes out the door and collect the check and give you 1% of it each time.

                      You’re nuts if you say you would take that deal, nuts and lying. The fact that your doing all that work and then getting such a crappy share would rankle you. People are wired like that.

                    3. You are going to give me free money and I am going to turn it down because you are getting more? Just stop in MNG. You argued yourself into a corner. Just admit you are wrong about this. This is getting funny.

                    4. I guess I’m nuts. If the 1% of the money coming in is worth an hour a day of my time, of course I would take it. The whole thing wasn’t my idea, and the alternative is not having any money from that venture. You’d have to be either nuts or completely consumed by envy not to take it.
                      I realize that lots of people do think the way you seem to think everyone must. But does it really surprise you that libertarians are less concerned than most people about a “fair” distribution of wealth? Or that they might see their wealthier boss as something to aspire to, not a problem that needs to be solved?

                    5. “All the work. I’ll just set the envelopes out the door and collect the check and give you 1% of it each time.”

                      Again, this is 1% of…what? The actual value matters greatly as to whether I think I am receiving value for my effort. Also, stuffing the envelopes is not “all the work”. Somehow you went out and negotiated the deal for stuffing these envelopes, which I did not do. If I were so inclined, I could find your purchaser and severely undercut you on price. I could offer him a 75% discount off your price and still make 25 times what I would working under you.

                      Why am I not doing that, MNG? Could it be that marketing such services and negotiating the terms of the deal is a type of work in itself with uncertain rewards? Ones that many people don’t want to involve themselves in?

                    6. Sigh

                      Excuse me while I wipe the smug off my computer. You haven’t come up with a counter example. You have just made the ridiculous claim that people will turn down better money because they think the owner of the business is making too much. That is just not true. And the existence of companies like Google and Facebook prove it.

                    7. When you gonna get these envelopes?

                      I guarantee you you will make more money from this than without it. And that’s the only criteria, right?

                    8. If you are offering me the chance to do something that is worth my time, of course I will. What do I care that you are getting more. Suppose I have a betting scam and offer you a 1% guaranteed share of a large payoff. You would turn it down because I am keeping 99%? Only if you are retarded.

                    9. That’s only because in your example I don’t have to do anything. I never made a similarly absolutist claim that other things won’t weigh in judging a deal other than shares, I only said relative shares can be A factor to a sane, normal person who is not simply engaging in envy or bigotry. There are many situations in which the fact that someone else is getting more can counterbalance the fact that everyone is gaining, that’s all I’ve said, over and over.

                    10. MNG if the person working at Google making a great living is pissed off that the guy who thought up the idea and started the company and risked his way of life to build it is making a whole lot more money than he is, that person is a class envy bigot and needs to go start his own damn business if he doesn’t like it.

                    11. John, you’re either continuing to miss points I’ve made or being dishonest here. I’ve said repeatedly that a person that other factors come in. First, other factors come in to determine the fairness of relative shares. That someone else is working harder, or had the brilliant idea, or is taking more risk, are all ones I noted previously in this discussion. That kind of thing justifies disparate shares to many people. Secondly there are factors that trump feelings over different shares, like that you have to eat and therefore work somewhere and you do the best your leverage allows. All of that explains your example of why people work in situations where some people make much more than them.

                      What I am saying is that the relative shares are part of the consideration, and that is not mere class envy/bigotry, it is part of a built-in sense of fairness people have, one you’ve now admited people have. Complaints over relative shares could be situated in this and at some point they could trump situations in which everyone gains. That’s what I’ve been saying since the beginning, can you man up and admit I was correct now?

                    12. What I am saying is that the relative shares are part of the consideration, and that is not mere class envy/bigotry, it is part of a built-in sense of fairness people have, one you’ve now admited people have.

                      Then I have been giving you too much credit because you are not saying anything. So what? Everyone wants their fair share. First, there is no way to determine what a “fair share is”. And second, there is no way to ensure it even if we knew.

                      You are just wasting everyone’s time making irrelevant points.

                2. Damn it MNG, you know damn good and well that this isn’t a right wing blog, even if some of the commenters are.

            5. You’re example is not very good MNG. If I have to work twice as much for only a 1% raise, I am not gaining anything since the leisure time I lost is worth more to me than the raise. Unless you are saying that the bottom quintile also is working far more than 18% more than 30 years ago, I’m not sure where the “work twice as hard” part comes from.

              1. Take the hard work out of it then. I’ve said that repeatedly.

                Let’s say you and I are equal partners in a firm. I say to you “hey, I’ve got a project on which I will make x amount on. If you do that project for me, and it will only take you two hours to do it, I will give you 1% of x. Deal?” Now, imagine x is more than you will make in anything else you will do in those two hours.

                Are you going to tell me you cannot fathom someone saying “you want me to do it and you get 99% of the pay? Fuck you dude” If the person said that, would they simply be engaging in class bigotry as John claimed, or could it possibly be based in something else? If you can even concieve of the person doing that then I’ve won my point.

                1. Are you going to tell me you cannot fathom someone saying “you want me to do it and you get 99% of the pay? Fuck you dude”

                  I can fathom someone voting for a Republicrat, but that person is still an idiot.

                  I have more money than before, it’s worth more than my time, and you expect some class envy to overwhelm my monetary interests?

                2. Well, if you were a partner in the operation, you might have a reasonable expectation that you would get a more even share. If you are simply an employee, not so much.
                  Come on, you spend enough time here to know that libertarians are a bunch of crazy weirdos who think about things differently than most people. It is really so surprising that we might think about situations like your hypotheticals here a bit differently?

                  1. I don’t think libertarians renounce basic ideas of fairness, no.

                    Let me ask you the domestic example. Two spouses, one does 1% of the housework and expenses, the other 99%. You can’t see any reason other than envy (or trading up for a better arrangement) for someone being upset over that arrangement, upset enough to end the arrangement? Note the 1% the first spouse does is 1% less the second would have to do without the arrangement.

                    I’m betting even a libertarian would readily admit that situation is reasonable.

                    1. This might be the dumbest MNG post evar!
                      And fuck, no, MNG, I won’t explain.
                      But you did give me a laugh! Thanks, pal!

                    2. MNG contributed 99% of the stupid on that sub-thread for no payoff whatsoever. He should demand more.

                    3. Oh for fuck’s sake. If I am in a relationship with someone, or a business partnership, yes, there is an expectation of fairness. What does that have to do with distribution of incomes? Unless you think that all of the wealth in the country is somehow collectively owned, or that everyone is somehow entitled to a share of all of the wealth in the country there is no a priori reason to see it as unfair that some people have more wealth than others.

                    4. You didn’t make the money in a vacuum. Pay back the society that fostered you.

          1. Because this is what the rich do with their money.

      2. They really should use CAGRs for these studies

      3. Also, remember that the 1% people in 1979 ARE NOT the same people that are the 1% in 2007.

    2. This report certainly bolsters the idea that a small group of people disproprtionately benefit from our current system, and of course this is one of the most frequently offered justifications as to why they should pay more in taxes to support that system…If class warfare is being waged it’s clear who the hands down winners are…

      1. The government?

        1. To clarify: When the rich are more hated/feared, they tend to get more regulatory powers and higher taxes. When the poor are more hated/feared, they tend to get more police power.

      2. the idiot MNG ALWAYS leaves out:

        Risk / reward.

        A stupid line worker putting widgets in boxes takes no risk, ergo, no reward.

        Stupid. Fucking. MNG.

      3. “…of course this is one of the most frequently offered justifications as to why they should pay more in taxes to support that system…”

        Which ignores that they already do pay more in taxes to support the system. The logic that you are using here can rationalize any rate, even ones that are profoundly unjust. It is not a logic that recommends any policy, it is just a blunt instrument for rationalizing what you want, that is why it is class warfare. You are making a virtue out of the vice of envy. At some point you have to talk about what concrete numbers are that you consider “fair” that are not obviously confiscatory, unjust and harmful to the economy?

        Pursuing a goal of cosmic “fairness” to the extent of shrinking the economic pie for everybody is stupid and evil and not a policy that should be pursued.

    3. The top 1% in 1981 are not the same people that are the top 1% now, fyi. Nor are the bottom 20% the same people.

      1. 1979, 1981, you get the idea.

        1. 1. I’m not sure how that mattters.

          2. Do you have any citation that shows how fluid that category is?

          1. 1. I’m not sure how that mattters”

            Of course it matters. Since the lowest 20% isn’t the same people now that it was in 1979, no one got an 18% raise in their standard of living. Some got more. Some got less by falling into the lower 20%. It means there isn’t a permanent underclass for you to claim class envy with. The person you hate today could be you tomorrow.

            1. People move up and down. That’s nice. But if, consistently, a small minority of the people receive disproprtionate benefits from the system it’s hard to find it a fair one.

              What kind of human would look at two societies, one in which only a handful of people get most of the benefits and one in which they are spread out amongst many more people and say the first one is better?

              1. “But if, consistently, a small minority of the people receive disproprtionate benefits from the system it’s hard to find it a fair one.”

                Who cares if it is “fair”? And what does fair even mean and who said life was fair? It is an efficient system that generates enormous amounts of wealth that everyone shares in. I will take that over an inefficient system that generates less wealth but is “fair” whatever that is.

                1. “And what does fair even mean and who said life was fair?”

                  So you won’t mind if we change the system to change that distribution. At least, you won’t complain it is unfair to do so because, you know, life ain’t and should not be fair.

                  1. I would mind because there is more to life than “fairness” There is also something called property rights and the right to keep what you earn. I don’t think any system should be constructed around some vague notion of “fairness”.

                    1. You’re conflating the two issues again and arguing against someone who is not here.

                      Any sane self-respecting person would turn down the deal I’m offering upthread even though they make more in the end. The fact that you think it is a terrible deal doesn’t mean you have a right to come take my money or envelopes though.

                      Here is my point: a system which raises everyone income but disproprtionately raises it for some can still be thought of as a bad deal.

                      What to do about that is a separate question. There are likely things that can be done about it that respect property rights and such, at least as much as they are respected currently.

                    2. No, it’s a bad deal because getting a 1% raise for double the work is just ludicrous. It has nothing to do with someone else making more money somewhere. If that were the case, we should all be turning down all our raises in protest of the 1% making more money.

                    3. Oh no, it does. I’M the one who will be making some more money. But see, John will make more too. Sure, he will be making me LOTS more, but he will make SOME more, and according to John that’s a deal only a class bigot can complain of.

                    4. “Any sane self-respecting person would turn down the deal I’m offering upthread even though they make more in the end.”

                      That is just not true. Let me give you an example. Suppose the NBA started hiring replacement players at a flat rate of 200K a year. And suppose that the NBA would still make a couple of billion off of the games with the replacement players. You don’t think they would get a line out the door of people wanting those jobs? There are tons of former college basketball players who would love to have a six figure income for playing basketball and wouldn’t care a one bit that the owners were making billions.

                      Your assumption is just absurd. People make decisions based on what is best for them not out of some vague notion that it is better to be poor than better off but with your boss getting more than you think is fair.

                    5. The NBA is a great example. If the owners said to the players “you are going to get paid more money next year, but your share of it is going to go down relative to ours” they can find this unfair.

                      In fact, that is what is going on RIGHT NOW.

                    6. The NBA is a perfect example. But there is an infinite amount of others. Google only employs a few hundred people. Yet it generates billions in income every year. Almost all of that goes to the few people who own it. Yet, people are lining up to go to work for Google. If what you were saying were true, no one would work for Google.

                    7. Wait, you’re moving on after conceding the NBA is a perfect example for my side?

                      So you admit that rational, reasonable people can oppose a situation in which they gain but others in the situation gain disproprtionately gain?

                    8. No, the NBA is a perfect example of my side. If they could make money by having any good basketball player instead of the elite, they would totally pay 200K a year forever and never run out of people willing to do it.

                    9. You do realize that the player’s share of revenues is larger than the owner’s under the old agreement and will stll likely be larger under any new agreement? The players may not like the owners trying to take back some percentage points, but it is not “unfair” of the owners to try.

                    10. Taxpayers should pay for armed men to protect your Pez dispenser collection but shouldn’t pay to provide food to a starving person. We have your number, I believe. Your specific interests are worthy of taxpayer protection, but nobody else’s needs are.

                    11. Oh shut up Tony. No one is starving your fucking half wit. Read the damned thread, the lowest 20% is nearly a fifth better off now than they were 30 years ago.

                    12. C’mon, no need to be nasty and insult and curse Tony right off the bat.

                      But yes Tony I think John has a point. Everyone did better, that’s a big point to remember. I just think it’s possible to look at a situation where everyone does better and still call it unfair. John seems to think otherwise, though I doubt he lives this way.

                    13. But the point is overall economic growth has benefited mostly those at the very top, even though they certainly aren’t the only ones who contributed to it.

                      I guess the question is under what circumstances would you favor redistributive policy?

                    14. Anyway, it is not the responsibility of any free person to “provide food to a starving person”. It is a choice. All this talk about “fairness” gives away the game: you can’t legislate morality.

                    15. Indeed, there ar two points I made from the numbers. One is the one we are debating, is it fair or sensible to have a system which disproportionately benfits the few though it overall benefits everyone?

                      My second point was that when the few disproprotionately benefit from the system then surely they should disproportionately have to pay for it.

                    16. “My second point was that when the few disproprotionately benefit from the system then surely they should disproportionately have to pay for it.”

                      They do. The richest one percent pay the majority of taxes in this country.

                    17. And I’ve heard you defend progressive taxation in theory. Good for you. But we have several major potential nominees for one party who are against that right now.

                    18. I am not defending it. I am just pointing out the fact. And you still haven’t answered my google example. Why do people work for companies like Google and Facebook when literally 99% of the profits go to the owners?

                    19. No, wait, full stop, like fluffy said, you don’t get to move on like that after bringing up the NBA.

                      Answer my question about that and then I will address your google question.

                    20. They are arguing about relative shares in the NBA right now.

                      Are they crazy? According to you the only thing they should be concerned about is whether they make .001 cents more next year than they did this year. But they are not. Are they being class bigots? Or will you accept that a common consideration people take into account when deciding to get into an arrangement is the relative shares of benefits?

                    21. I did above. If the NBA didn’t need LaBron James to sell tickets and could make just as much money with second rate college players, they could totally pay 200K a year and never run out of players. People don’t care what the owners making. They care what they are making relative to not taking the job.

                      Only an idiot would pass up a better paying job because they were mad that the owner made too much money.

                    22. A person takes a lot into account when deciding to take a job, and most have indeed resigned themselves to the fact that many people are going to make more than they do (though they also realize the person’s making more often have more responsibilties, have the critical ideas or skills, or have taken greater risk and therefore warrant more consideration).

                      But people do take relative shares into account when judging a situation. Like I said they are doing it in the NBG RIGHT NOW. Are they crazy or class bigots?

                    23. No. The NBA players are only striking because they think they could get better. If there were no other choice, they would certainly work for 200K a year because they most likely don’t have other options. But since they are an elite, and they can’t be easily replaced, they are using their leverage to get more money. Take away the leverage and make it so the NBA could make just as much money with other players, and the NBA players wouldn’t be striking, they would be taking their 200K and loving it.

                    24. But, according to you, why should they care about their share as long as their money is increasing?

                      Maybe the domestic partnership example I’m using above is a better one. If partner one does 1% of the work and partner 2 does 99%, would it be crazy for partner 2 to dissolve the partnership over that? According to you the answer must be no, because the 1% partner number 1 does is 1% less than partner 2 would have to do without partner number 1.

                      But surely you can see a rational person being upset over this and junking the arrangement?

                    25. When you going to pick up these envelopes? You’re going to make more money than you do now, I promise you that.

                    26. MNG Google just offered you a 250K a year job that you would enjoy doing. By your logic you would turn that down because the owners are keeping 99% of the income. Yeah right.

                    27. Actually, studies have shown that, given the choice between, for example, getting $100 and knowing that someone else get $1000, or getting $50 and knowing someone else got only $25, most people choose the latter. It’s just some idiotic part of human nature, I guess, to prefer to be better off than the other guy, even if you’re better off in the absolute terms with the other choice.

                      Of course, this could explain economic fallacies in general. If you knew there was no difference in the value of a dollar for either scenario, and that you would definitely be getting twice as much purchasing power, then the first deal seems better. But if you think, I can get 9% of the total purchasing power, or 67% of it, then of course you’ll take the second deal, if you think the total power purchasing power is the same in both scenarios.

                      But the thing is, that’s not the case in the country. The pie is getting bigger, so even if the top 1% are getting a bigger percentage of the pie, there’s still more pie for everyone.

                    28. I have seen those studies Joe. The problem is the money is too small of an amount. I can write off a few hundred dollars for the pleasure of knowing I am getting a “fair deal”. But make the amount larger and it starts to outweigh my righteous indignation. Raise the amounts to say 100,000 and 1,000 and I bet the results change.

                    29. “for the pleasure of knowing I am getting a “fair deal””

                      Jesus Christ, so you acknowledge that people do have this sense of a fair deal that matters at least some to them when weighing economic arrangements.

                      This is what we’ve been debating for an hour. Sheesh.

                    30. Were those goal posts heavy moving them MNG? Do people have a sense of fairness? Sure. Are they going to turn down a better job or refuse to work for someone for simple fact that the boss is making too much money? Not in a million years. If that were true, there would never have been a CEO pay crisis you are always yapping about since everyone would have quit their jobs at companies that overpaid CEOS.

                    31. So you are saying there is no point where this sense of fairness you admit people have could possibly outweigh any iota of gain?

                      You realize how goofy that is, don’t you? You are essentially saying that people have a sense of fairness that has some value to them, but no actual value in the next sentence.

                      What’s funny is that it is YOU moving the goalposts. Because your original stance was that any complaint about relative shares as long as everyone gains is simply class envy and bigotry. But you’ve shot that out the water in admitting that it might come from this “sense of fairness” you now admit everyone has.

                    32. “…so you acknowledge that people do have this sense of a fair deal that matters at least some to them when weighing economic arrangements.”

                      Can you acknowledge that this sense of envy is destructive and government policy that caters to it will also be destructive?

                    33. “It’s just some idiotic part of human nature”

                      It’s just that fairness counts to people, it’s worth something to them, like their free time. It can, though not always, trump mere welfare (the utlitarian on this board should not have to be the one to explain this to you guys).

                      Do people take things other than fairness into account? Sure. As John mentions they have to eat, they have to be aware of their leverage, and so compromises are made. But when the leverage and such is similar, like in the domestic partnership example, relative shares come to the forefront.

                      Now, an entirely separate matter is this idea that one must allow inequality of this sort in order to have the dymanic economy that raises all boats. Maybe that is true, maybe not (you may be surprised to find I actually think it is at least true in some form). But that is a different matter than whether fairness is a normal, sane consideration.

                    34. It’s just that fairness counts to people, it’s worth something to them, like their free time.

                      But hold on, this isn’t even about fairness. Because in the second choice, the person is getting two thirds of the money; hardly fair. I suppose it is closer to an even distribution, but both people are worse off with that deal. It’s really the essence of the issue, that income inequality is a part of capitalism, but it’s not a bad thing if everyone is richer.

                    35. I simply think it can be considered a bad deal for those who are not getting the disproportionate benefit despite the fact their situation improves. Take the domestic example I gave above. Say your no-good brother moves in with you. His prescence does not cost you anything, he contributes some fraction of what you do in housework and expenses, but it is more than you would have without him there. You can’t imagine someone saying “hey, get the hell out” to him over the relative shares?

                    36. Are you saying my total amount of chores would increase? If so, eh, it’s a judgement call. If I like my brother a lot, he could be providing intangible value like entertainment and socializing. It’s just not a simple calculation.

                      Also, you original example about getting 1% of the money and doing all the work is just not applicable to the real world. The 1% are the ones providing all the capital investment to expand the economy in the first place. Simple manual labor is work, sure, but it’s not the only production factor.

                    37. “If I like my brother a lot, he could be providing intangible value like entertainment and socializing. It’s just not a simple calculation.”

                      holy shit, thought experiments are totally alien to you…In fact, abstract thought in general it seems…

                      Let me try to demonstrate what you are doing here.

                      MNG: Joe, what about a situation in which one’s spouse does a much smaller share of everything, you can’t see someone being upset over that, even though whatever little she does is at least something little you don’t have to do?

                      Joe: But my wife smells really good and she like football.

                    38. Fine, be that way. And by the way, I demand some of the money you’re making, since you probably make more than me, and that’s not fair.

                    39. Jesus Christ you are dense. I answered this lame tired point the first two times it was made above @ 9:30 and 9:59.

                    40. “But that is a different matter than whether fairness is a normal, sane consideration.”

                      It may be normal, but it is not “sane”, at best it is not rational, and such destructuve tendencies should not be encouraged.

              2. I’d rather live in the US of today than is a place that is uniformly poor. I would expect any rational human to make the same choice. Being comfortable and prosperous is more important than some ideal of fairness.

                Now, I do think that massive wealth inequality can be a problem in some circumstances. The point I want to make is that it is not a problem all by itself. It does no harm to me if more millionaires become billionaires. Even where inequality is a significant problem, I would say that it is more of a symptom of bigger problems (corrupt, kleptocratic governments enriching their cronies, organized crime, war, etc.) than a problem in and of itself.

                1. “I’d rather live in the US of today than is a place that is uniformly poor.”

                  Well, with all due respect, duh. Like I said above many people, including many prominent liberals like Rawls, seem to think that in order to have a dynamic economy with a great quality of life you MUST have inequality because of how it incentivizes activity. I actually think that. But like I said above “But that is a different matter than whether fairness is a normal, sane consideration.”

                  All I am claiming is that it’s quite normal for a person to have a sense of fairness that, other things being equal, can trump a situation in which their situation is improved.

                  1. “Well, with all due respect, duh.”

                    That does not square with this:

                    “What kind of human would look at two societies, one in which only a handful of people get most of the benefits and one in which they are spread out amongst many more people and say the first one is better?”

                    You suggest that only an inhuman monster could ever prefer the society with unequal wealth. Sorry, MNG, you framed it in absolutist terms, don’t bitch when someone points out an obvious condition where the ist society if preferable.

              3. It’s fair when people, by way of voluntary transactions, trade to mutual benefit. The fact that you don’t get to unilaterally dictate the terms to your trading partner doesn’t make it unfair.

              4. “What kind of human would look at two societies, one in which only a handful of people get most of the benefits and one in which they are spread out amongst many more people and say the first one is better?”

                If few people in the 1st society are objectively poor and almost everyone is objectively poor in the 2nd society, what kind of moron would say that the 2nd society is better?

                The distribution of wealth in a scoiety says little to nothing about what conditions are like for individuals in that society. It is an ugly wrld where the 1st priority is satisfy people’s sense of envy. Syop trying to create such a world.

          2. Are you kidding? Of course it matters. The youngest people, on average, are going to be in the lower tiers, as they are just starting their careers or working minimum wage jobs. The older people get, the higher their income goes on average.

            Also, there’s the obvious fact that there are people who weren’t even born in 1979, and people who died by 2007. So it’s not the same people.

            1. Think of it as a group of parallel escalators. Some don’t go as high, some don’t start as low, but they’re all moving up, with people getting off at the tops and getting on at the bottoms all the time.

          3. Do you have any citation that shows how fluid that category is

            Too lazy to look for a link, but the top and bottom quintiles are the most fluid within families with about a third moving in our out in a generation.

            1. Point taken, but 1/3 in a generation hardly equals “those are’nt the same people in 1980 as now”

      2. Conveniently forgotten to drive the meme.

    4. The poorest 20% experienced 18% growth?

      Not bad.

      So much for the myth that the poor are getting poorer.

      1. Uh, relatively poorer! Yeah, that’s it.

      1. Not substantive; only one sentence.

      2. I think you should add a cut and past from some feminist site you find amusing, then you’re perfect to replace Warty.

        1. I’m thinking of changing my handle to mehitabel

          1. the life of a female
            artist is continually
            hampered what in hell
            have i done to deserve
            all these kittens
            i look back on my life
            and it seems to me to be
            just one damned kitten
            after another
            i am a dancer archy
            and my only prayer
            is to be allowed
            to give my best to my art
            but just as i feel
            that i am succeeding
            in my life work
            along comes another batch
            of these damned kittens

        2. Stop it, MNG, serious people who probably make more than you are trying to have an adult conversation here.

    5. So, the poorest 20% still grew by 18%? Even when, by definition, they suck at accumulating money? Meaning, any idiot with a social security number was able to grow their income by 18%? And this is bad…how?

      1. Because it’s not FAIRRRR!!!111!!

      2. because of das juden.

        1. JOOOS!!!111!!

    6. “The richest Americans ? the top “1 percent” targeted by the Occupy Wall Street movement ? saw a huge 275 percent increase in income over the last three decades, according to a new Congressional Budget Office report.”

      Bullshit. People move up and down the quartiles all of the time. 13% of the people that were in the bottom quartile in 2000 were in the top quartile in 2010. I just heard this on the PBS Newshour last week.

    7. Also, a pretty key piece of information here is that these are quintiles moving upwards, not people. All this says the is that people in the lowest quintile today are making 18% more (inflation adjusted?) than the people in the lowest quintile in 1979.

      Chances are, the lowest quintile in 2007 is comprised of totally different people than it was in 1979, which means that those botton 20% in 1979 have made income gains well in excess of 18% and pushed themselves out of the lowest quintile.

      See the posts from a few days ago in the Meghan McCain article about upward/downward mobility in America

  27. Cutting defense spending will put over a million Americans out of work.

    Obviously the only solution is more war. And I mean War war. Think of the children for christ sake. I say we bomb New Zealand. I will never forgive Peter Jackson for leaving out the “In The House Of Tom Bombadil” chapter from the movie.

    1. That’s the most goofy part of the book, I’m glad he left it out.

      1. Yeah, I never got the Tom Bombadil luuurve either.

        1. That part is so goofy and non-essential to the story if philogolists discovered the work centuries now they’d assume some other author inserted it…

      2. Oh god I cannot decide which is worse: an MNG-John Lovefest or nerds talking about Tom Bombadil. Free hint: ALL of the books are boring.

        1. You think the part of the Hobbit where Smaug is killed by the black arrow is not rousing?

          Dude, you have no soul.

          1. I fell asleep way before that.

        2. What? I find that disturbing.

          1. Your pro-Dragon leanings are noted. I’ve long suspected you were a Saurian hack.

            1. I meant I found the idea that the books were boring was disturbing.

              1. Omit the superfluous “was.”

      3. How the fuck are they supposed to get away from the barrow wights or get their ponies back without Bombadil?

    2. Oh uncool bush! Unloose this passle
      Of furry cats that you hassle!
      Tho’ by speed my brain’s destroyed,
      I’m not half this paranoid!
      So cease this bummer, down the freak-out,
      Let caps and joints cause brains to leak out!
      These cats are groovy here among us,
      So leave ’em be, you up-tight fungus!
      Tim, Tim Benzedrine!
      Hash! Boo! Valvoline!
      Clean! Clean! Clean for Gene!
      First, second, neutral, park,
      Hie thee hence, you leafy narc!

      1. Bored of the Rings. Just awesome.

      2. BOTR quote…nice. Is this still in print?

        1. I doubt it. The only copy I had was ragged, and that was twenty years ago.

        2. I just put ‘bored of the rings’ into google shopping and got results ranging from $1 to $171.

        3. I don’t think there’s a current edition, but it’s been re-released more than once. I highly recommend it–brilliantly funny. I also like Doon, which is basically the same treatment of Dune. That’s probably harder to find.

          1. Doon?
            I’m not sure I could even read that one. I’m one of those who actually read and enjoyed Chapterhouse.

            Hmmmm. The wiki entry for Chapterhouse says that Herbert’s sons published two more books based upon notes that were to become a seventh book.
            May have to check that out once I finish the Gunslinger books.

            1. You don’t want to do that. If it wasn’t written by Frank Herbert, don’t read it.

              I like all of the Frank Herbert Dune novels, but the first one is far and away the best. That said, I love the Doon parody.

    3. ok, Ok, O fucking K God Damn it. leave out the House of Tom Bombidil. For Fucks Sake.

      But you have to admit, leaving out the “The Scorching Of The Shire” was a tragedy. Bombworthy fucking tragedy. Load up the B-52’s.

      1. I actually don’t love the movies because of the replacement of some pretty important pieces with new filler. Looks like The Hobbit might have more of the same, with characters being included who weren’t in the book (might be just framing the story, of course).

        1. I agree. Shelob should have been the 2nd movie closer. Arwen shouldn’t have been in it. And that wolverine battle in the 2nd movie when Aragon goes off the cliff, that was stupid.

          I don’t see how they can make two movies out of the Hobbit. It is a short book IMHO. And I have heard that Legolas is in it. ….. sigh…..

          1. I think they’re fleshing out the narrative with Gandalf & Co.’s beatdown of the Necromancer.

            You could end Part 1 in any of several places: the Dwarves getting webbed in Mirkwood, Bilbo trying to get into the Wood Elves’ palace.

          2. Legolas could have been in the Hobbit, though not by name.
            He was a prince of the wood elves. The same elves whose parties Bilbo and the dwarves kept crashing.
            But yeah, to give him a role in the movie is lame. As lame as giving Stephen Tyler’s daughter an important role as an unimportant character.

            1. Arwen was an important role as a plot device, not as a character in her own right. Of course a movie was going to take the future King’s love interest and expand on it, especially since there is really only one female main character in the whole story.

          3. I fucking hate Orlando Bloom.

            1. You’re just jealous that he’s got his penis inserted into a Victoria’s Secret model right now.

              1. Well now I am. But I also can’t stand him as an actor.

        2. I had the same problem with the movies. The plot changes they made seems completely unnecessary. The things that most irritated me were the lack of Bombadil (though I can understand why people think he is irrelevant), putting the back story exposition at the beginning instead of at the council of Elrond where it belongs, using Gimli as some sort of comic relief in the second movie and the Scouring of the Shire being left out. Visually, I thought it was pretty perfect, though.

          1. How come the most important fuck up they made hasnt been mentioned. FOR CHRISTS SAKE! Boromir and Faramir represent the two sides of Man. Yet they were portayed exactly the same and that stupid bitch screenwriter actually said Tolkien didnt understand drama.

            1. And elves at Helms Deep…disgusting.

            2. Yeah, I forgot about that. I’ve only seen the movies once several years ago, and as you can probably gather, I am far more familiar with the book.

          2. “…and the Scouring of the Shire being left out.”

            I could understand that if the argument was it was anticlimatic. However, it was left out because Jackson did not like it. I did not like it the first time I read LOTR, but the second time I understood it was part of the point of the story. The hobbits were no longer the goofy man-children they were starting out and were now among the Wise in their own right because they had been through hell and lived.

      2. Scouring, not Scorching.

        And I agree. It was an important part of the story.

      3. I didn’t care about Tom Bombadil. But I agree that they shouldn’t have left out the scouring of the Shire. After all in the hero’s journey the hero has to return with a boon for the community he left behind. And they hinted at the scence with Frodo looking in the mirror of Galadriel.

        1. It’s not like they didn’t have time–the ending dragged out forever, anyway.

          1. Sure, cut some of the add in scences with the wargs and elves at Helm’s deep. Break up the endless ending with the scouring of the Shire which didn’t have to be all that long anyway and maybe even a fourth film cutting all of the three to a managable time.

          2. It was not for time. Jackson did not like that part of the book and therefore did want to commit it to film. There is lot to admire in Jackson for even trying to make essentially one 10 plus hour long movie, but he does have an unfortunately immature aspect about him.

  28. A story that hits all the buzzwords: a policeman and former public school administrator (who both “changed their last names to Muhammad for religious reasons”) get busted for running a “pill mill.”

    http://www.chron.com/default/a…..238306.php

    1. I love how they are somehow responsible for the dingbat housewife who overdosed on the pills they sold her. What a drag it is getting old.

      1. You’re just a shill for big personal responsibility.

        1. I get a check every month and a new decoder ring every year. Cash money homey. Cash money.

    2. You can’t fool *me*, Apatheist. That’s from The Onion.

    3. The unlikely duo – Durce Muhammad is an educator with a 1995 felony theft conviction, and Danny Muhammad has served as a policeman since 1997 – also face wrongful death lawsuits as the alleged co-owners of two other high volume cash-only clinics called “Unimed” “Unimuhammed” that in 2007 offered locations in Houston and Beaumont. Their defense attorney, Warren Fitzgerald Muhammad, declined comment.

      FTFY

    4. For religious reasons, eh?
      I wonder what religion it is? Strange that the article doesn’t say…

  29. Little late to the party, but that’s Mountain Time for ya.

    Anyway, I enjoyed the comments on this article…

    Jezebel on the Complex Sexual Politics of OWS

    It seems that even criticizing these ACTIVISTS who are working for SOCIAL CHANGE riles up a lot of people, especially if you support the police handling rapes because the cops are, like, the man, man.

    1. I very much want the OB movement to make a difference in this city and the nation but the physical space is not very safe ? especially for women.

      It surprises me that she is surprised by this, especially in Baltimore. FFS.

      1. Nobody is safe in Baltimore.

    2. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  30. I know that Willard is Romney’s first name, but which Willard is he? The guy with the rats or Captain Willard?

    1. Captain Willard. Owning rats is not conducive to good hair. And being reptilian he eats them freshly killed and whole and thus doesn’t keep them as pets.

      1. If he’s Willard, who is Kurtz? McCain? Old Man Paul?

        1. Paul. He is gone up there and has is own army of Libertarians. Terminate his command.

          1. Terminate. . .the doctor?

            1. With extreme prejudice. This mission has not and will never exist.

              1. Dr. Paul: Did they say why, Willard, why they want to terminate my command?
                Willard: I was sent on a classified mission, sir.
                Dr. Paul: It’s no longer classified, is it? Did they tell you?
                Willard: They told me that you had gone totally insane, and that your methods were unsound.
                Dr. Paul: Are my methods unsound?
                Willard: I don’t see any method at all, sir.
                Dr. Paul: I expected someone like you. What did you expect? Are you an assassin?
                Willard: I’m a soldier.
                Dr. Paul: You’re neither. You’re an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill in fiat money.

                1. If Paul were Cain, there would be a campaign commercial with Paul as Kurtz.

                  1. And it would be the best. political ad. ever.

                    Looking at the Capitol Building “The Horror, the Horror.

                    I’m Ron Paul and I approve this message.

                  2. It would be genius Pro. Just genius.

                    1. It would certainly get my vote.

        2. That’s Disco Brotherman Paul.

        3. “It’s impossible for words to describe what is necessary to those who do not know what austerity means. Austerity… austerity has a face… and you must make a friend of austerity. Austerity and fiscal discipline are your friends. If they are not, then they are enemies to be feared. They are truly enemies! I remember when I was running for the House… seems a thousand centuries ago. We went into a small town where I’d inoculated some children. We left the town after we had inoculated the children for polio, and this old man came running after us and he was crying. He couldn’t see. We went back there, and they had come and hacked every social program, every arm of local government. And I remember… I… I… I cried, I wept like some progressive. I wanted to tear my teeth out; I didn’t know what I wanted to do! And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it… I never want to forget. And then I realized… like I was shot… like I was shot with a diamond… a diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought, my God… the genius of that! The genius! The will to do that! Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure. And then I realized they were stronger than we, because they could stand that these were not monsters, these were men… trained cadres. These men who fought with their hearts, who had families, who had children, who were filled with love… but they had the strength… the strength… to do that. If I had a voting majority of those men, our troubles in this country would be over very quickly. You have to have men who are moral… and at the same time who are able to utilize their quantitative skills to cut budgets without feeling… without passion… without fear of judgment… without fear of judgment! Because it’s judgment that defeats us.”

          1. Excellent.

          2. Love it.

            1. I’m a Johnny-come-lately but…this. This is good stuff BP.

      2. Saigon… shit; I’m still only in Saigon…

        1. I wanted a mission… and for my sins, they gave me one.

  31. Sick of seeing women dressed in revealing Halloween costumes? Want to smash the dominant paradigm of THE MALE GAZE? Upset at the thought that a woman might be considered more attractive than you?

    Take Back Halloween!

    1. How did this

      http://takebackhalloween.org/pele/

      slip though? The outfit is moderately revealing and the woman wearing it is gorgeous. But the idea of dressing as a 19th Century schoolmarm as a way to take back Halloween is priceless. I am sure all of the cute girls will dump their slutty nun and playboy bunny outfits for it right this minute.

      1. That’s so weird – My little granddaughter was just telling me the other day that she wanted to be Nzinga this year!

      2. I pray they keep the Sasha Grey outfits.

        1. uh…. adult girls that is.

          1. I didn’t realize she had an “outfit,” other than a birthday suit.

            1. Uh,…. duh.

              1. So you’re saying we need to start a “Take Your Birthday Back!” campaign?

                1. Now you are talking.

      3. Schoolmarm or virgin sacrifice?

    2. I dunno, some of these are pretty cool, IMO.

      1. It’s not that some of them aren’t cool, it’s that they treat women like they are little children when they suppose that they are dressing provocatively for Halloween under the geas of some dastardly male plot. “Take Back” Halloween asserts that it is something that has been stolen, and equates “slutty” costumes with sexual assault by deliberately echoing “Take Back The Night” rallies.

        Are you suffering from false consciousness? Is free will something you think you need to be cured of, saved from?

        1. OK, fair enough. I hadn’t read this mission statement, just looked at costumes. I agree with your assessment.

          1. Devil’s Advocate, you have become infected with false patriarchal consciousness. Luckily, we have a cure: Quarantine in the nearest Womyn’s Studies program for a period of 6 months to 4 years. It’s your only hope!

            1. Well, I have already been called a traitor to my gender, so I suppose it simply must be the re-education camps.

        2. Are you suffering from false consciousness? Is free will something you think you need to be cured of, saved from?

          PEOPLE THINK YOU’RE STRANGE? DO YOU?? …THEN YOU MAY BE ON THE RIGHT TRACK!

          http://www.subgenius.com/pam1/pamphlet_p1.html

        3. It is pretty fucking weird that basically every female costume in a store is a “slutty X”. If you want a costume that is just cool in and of itself, you pretty much have to make it yourself.

          1. “If you want a costume that is just cool in and of itself, you pretty much have to make it yourself.”

            That would probably be true of cheap store bought costumes even if they weren’t all “slutty X”.

          2. Yeah, I’m sure the female Grimace costumes would fly off the shelves.

        4. TONIGHT! TAKE BACK HOLLOWEEN BATTLES SLUUUUUUUT WAAAAAAAALK!!!!!

          1. I might actually pay good money to see that.

      2. I can’t see dressing like a 19th century schoolmarm either, but a Minoan Queen? That could work.

    3. So now Halloween is the new Superbowl Sunday, where men drink too much and then beat their wives/girlfriends (sometimes both!), except they, you know, don’t?

      1. Resotras, the truth of a statistic doesn’t matter. It’s the emotional truth of the statistic that truly matters.

        1. Don’t oppress the womyn’s way of knowing with patriarchal adherence to gendered concepts of ‘fact’.

      2. Halloween is the Super Bowl of drinking.

    4. Going to my law school’s halloween party tomorrow and just overheard some of the girls talking about what they are wearing. I’d like to say a big thank you to their emotionally distant fathers.

    5. Just ordered the Emma Goldman costume. I hopez it comes in time I hopez I hopez I hopez.

    6. What do any of those costumes have to do with Halloween?

      1. No idea, but you can be quite sure that twenty other women won’t be wearing variants of the same costume if you go to the party as Pele.

    7. Why is the Minoan queen costume covering the woman’s breasts? That’s historically inaccurate and representative of how our patriarchal culture steps on the equally-legitimate values of matriarchal cultures from around the world.

      1. It’s a bit of an ethnic stereotype too, no?

      2. It’s a costume, not a culture!

  32. Want to smash the dominant paradigm of THE MALE GAZE?

    I think Willow resolved this conundrum nicely.

    1. Willow Rosenberg did grow up to be a super hot woman.

  33. police armed with MP5s, pistols, and a battering ram broke down the door of a Desert Shield vet

    I like how veterans of wars that Reason never misses an opportunity to ridicule are nevertheless handy props in drug-war stories. Also grandmothers. And the homeless.

    1. And we know that Reason never misses an opportunity to ridicule grandmothers!
      What bitches!

      1. And you know those homeless, veteran grandmothers?
        Fuck ’em!

        1. Fucker, beat me to it.

          1. After Vietnam, there was a sea change in attitude. Most people feel now [citation needed] that even if they disapprove of a war, that doesn’t mean they have to spit on that war’s veterans. Real talk.

      2. On-topic:

        I need to change subjects to the earthquakes that is engulfing the planet. With the big quake hitting Turkey today and causing much damage we need a warning system to accurately warn us of earthquakes. With the planets all lining up in 2012 our plates on this planet are going to be in for some very strong pulling.

        So I’d like to point out a 100% sure way to tell if your area is going to experience an earthquake. It’s not a machine that we need to tell about an oncoming earthquake we need flamingos! A short while ago an area of the Earth had an Earthquake and a report said that it was noticed that the flamingos all bunched together before the quake. They did that to insure themselves that they would not fall over and hurt themselves. They also knew that the quake was coming. Animals are pretty smart, aren’t they. We just have to figure out what it is that they know.

        Now every area that is in a quake zone must get a flamingo pen set up. Make sure it is on the ground and climate controlled to to keep it warm in cold weather. You don’t want the flamingos huddling together so to stay warm. Have a camera on the pen at ALL times. Have transmitters put on the flamingos that will put out an alert that will alert you when they bunch together. When they bunch together sound off an loud alarm that will warn people to get out of all unsafe buildings and areas.

        Also, he’s running for President. Vote McCune, because why not?

        1. FUCK. YES.

          FLAMINGO WARNING!!! FLAMINGO WARNING!!!!FLAMINGO WARNING!!!!FLAMINGO WARNING!!!!FLAMINGO WARNING!!!!FLAMINGO WARNING!!!!FLAMINGO WARNING!!!!FLAMINGO WARNING!!!!!

        2. Wait, do the lawn ornament kind work too?

    2. Are they ridiculing the war or the veterans? I’m okay with ridiculing the war, because I mocked it while I was in it.

      1. I guess I should scroll down before posting. Commenting in posts long after everyone else has stopped still holds risks, apparently.

  34. http://www.saysuncle.com/2011/…..ver-stuff/

    Apparently there are a bunch of people running around Occupy Phoenix with AR 15s. And the same media that had kittens over a single AR 15 at a Phoenix Tea Party event, are of course not saying a word.

    1. Because Occupy Phoenix is not responsible for fomenting the shooting of Gabby Giffords like the Tea Party, of course. Duh!

    2. are you saying the OWS phoenix protestors are armed?

      1. Apparently they are as is their constitutional right. I don’t have a problem with it. But I would think the people who fainted at the sight of a single weapon at a Tea Party event would. That is of course if they are not just hacks.

    3. moar gop obsfucation & lies. that’s a militia exercising their 2d amendment rights & protesting fast n furious. >this isnt even good radio entertainment

      1. Are they not at occupy Phoenix? Guns at a protest? Why aren’t you fainting?

  35. veterans of wars that Reason never misses an opportunity to ridicule

    I guess I need to take my outrage meter to the shop for a tune-up.

    1. Ridiculing the war is not the same as ridiculing the veteran.

    2. Because insulting stupid, pointless wars is the same as insulting the people who fought in them, or something.

      Which candidate received the most money from active service military again?

      1. I will say this in defense of the post. What difference does it make that the guy was a veteran? I would be just as angered by it if it had been a bead sucking hippie peacenik. And I am sure Reason would too.

        So why did Reason feel the need to add the “veteran” to the description. It certainly isn’t because they think veterans deserve some special status and be immune from police brutality when the rest of us aren’t. No, they put it in there as a mawkish appeal, which is a bit much coming from a magazine that objects to any and every war.

        1. Typically, people are described with a word, or short phrases. “Businessman”, “mother-of-two”, “insane Internet troll with fisting fetish”, or “social worker”. “Veteran” fits in that category.

          1. Really? I would think after a while what you do now would be your title. This guy was a medical marijuana clinic owner.

            1. I want mine to be “Aloha shirt-wearing anarchist beekeeper”

            2. He was a clinic owner? Was that in a different article than the one linked? I didn’t see it.

              1. Whatever he was. He certainly did something besides be a veteran.

          2. We used to joke about having a publicly accessible database where you could upload your preferred 2 or 3 word descriptor for the press to use.

            I leaning towards ‘avowed curmudgeon’ for mine.

        2. So why did Reason feel the need to add the “veteran” to the description.

          Perhaps to show that the WOD isn’t just a way on smelly rasta hippie beatniks, but a war on everyone?

        3. Not everyone here objects to any and all war. And what BakedPenguin said, but also, I occasionally hope people who are usually on the side of police by default will take an extra moment to pause and think hmmm, maybe this is excessive, when brutality happens to a veteran. I don’t think that’s unreasonable or underhanded.

        4. It’s a cheap play to emotion in people who ordinarily aren’t too sympathetic to people who grow pot. A lot of people who have a lot of disdain for your typical pot smoker have a lot of respect for veterans. It’s cheap, but I don’t think it hurts.

    3. Crap, in after John, and it wasn’t clear that I was in agreement with P Brooks, not ragging him for a comment he didn’t make.

  36. Occupy San Francisco and Occupy Oakland are putting Occupy Wall Street to shame.

    ‘Shame’: as in, they’ve been far quicker to resort to disorder and provoking confrontation?

    I think californians suffer from inferiority complex, always thinking they need to outdo the East Coast in some way, and generally making asses out of themselves in the process.

    In this case, its sort of unfair, because they’re trying to out-asshole some already-serious assholes.

    But I’m sure the dancing and chanting, drumming and public disruption will eventually result in some kind of more equitable distribution of incomes, and the eventual reforming of capitalism in its entirety. This is obviously what makes things change. Not ‘ideas’. No, its drum circles and tear gas scrums and veggie burritos that change the world.

    And white indians with computers.

  37. It’s not that some of them aren’t cool, it’s that they treat women like they are little children when they suppose that they are dressing provocatively for Halloween under the geas of some dastardly male plot. “Take Back” Halloween asserts that it is something that has been stolen, and equates “slutty” costumes with sexual assault by deliberately echoing “Take Back The Night” rallies.

    Gibberish aside, by what sleight of hand does dressing up as Lana Turner refute the power of Teh Male Gaze?

    This does not in any way mean to imply that I do not approve of women who actually *look like* Lana Turner sashaying around in slinky dresses, mind you.

    1. I liked that there was an Audrey Hepburn costume. I imagine they stock it up to size 30.

    2. LAAAAAAAANNNNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

      1. WHAT?!

    3. If more women dressed like Veronica Lake, the world would be a better place.

  38. Just ordered the Emma Goldman costume. I hopez it comes in time I hopez I hopez I hopez.

    I had you pegged as Ethel Rosenberg.

    1. Where is the Sonia Sotomayor Wise Latina costume?

      1. SHE’S A CULTURE NOT A COSTUME.

      2. Yeah one wonders, especially since they have a Ruth Bader Ginsburg costume.

        1. OK, I LOL’d at that. Well played, sir, well played.

        2. You have to supply your own glasses? Cheap costume, man.

      3. The Army calls is a “GP MEdium Tent.”

        1. Nice. Cruel, but nice.

    2. I’m mildly surprised they don’t have an Ethel Rosenberg.

      In other Halloween news, I hope the costume shop has some top hats and monocles.

        1. That hat is adorable.

          …Which I guess makes it a tool of the patriarchy. 🙁

      1. The fuck, warty?
        You don’t have your own?

        1. You don’t want to wear your good monocle and top hat out on Halloween, CN. Nothing ruins a fine top hat like skank vomit.

        2. Ruffians stole his top hat. Luckily, he was able to stash his monocle in his anus, or they would have stolen that as well!

          1. Sir, although you are correct that I was attacked by Irishmen who desired my accoutrements, my top hat was not stolen. Indeed, I retain possession of the same; however, during the scuffle in which I strove against my Popish adversaries, it became rather stained with the blood and other fluids that issued forth from their bodies. I have ordered my launderer to restore it to its former condition, but despite repeated thrashings, he claims he cannot. I shall have have his children made into a pair of spats if he persists in this lie.

          2. If I were mugging warty, that’d be the first place I’d look for his valuables.

            1. I don’t need the money that bad.

              1. Four sentences. Substance. Also, hilarious.

  39. If I were the sort of person who dressed up for Halloween (It’s hard enough just being me), I would dress up as Uncle Sam wearing a barrel, thusly.

  40. Feel free, especially those of you in the warmer regions of the country, to use that idea without let or hindrance.

  41. Top hats are a tool of the patriarchy.

    EGAD!


    Includes: Hat. Does not include costume.

    Even better. As long as it includes the girl.

    1. They don’t have another good album in them? That’d be my guess, but what do I know?

      1. I didn’t know until I saw that review that they had made an album with Lou Reed. Seriously, what the fuck was everyone thinking?

        1. I’d say doing an album with Lou Reed makes my point. If they had any other idea worth doing, wouldn’t they be off doing that instead of an album with Lou Freaking Reed?

    2. Jesus! Looks like Lou has been taking aging lessons from Keith Richards.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.