A.M. Links: Iran Threatens Hormuz Blockade, Rick Perry Sues Virginia, Cheetah the Chimp Is Dead


  • Iran will block the Straight of Hormuz if Europe interferes with its nuclear program.

  • Oil prices climb as a supposed result. 
  • Newt Gingrich loved Romneycare before he liked it only slightly better than Obamacare. 
  • Rick Perry is suing Virginia for access to the GOP primary ballot.  
  • Cheetah is dead at 80. 
  • Facebook is about to have the biggest IPO of any Internet company since the dot-com bubble burst. 

Do you want hot links and other Reason goodies delivered to your inbox twice a day? Sign up here for Reason's morning and afternoon news updates.

New at Reason.tv: "Crackdowns on Consensual Sex, Veggies, and more! Nanny of the Year (2011)"

NEXT: Jacob Sullum on the Year's Highlights in Blame Shifting

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. Oil prices spike just as Obama has to cancel that piepline? His balls are now in the vice.


    2. First comment and you blew it, chump.

    3. Have we won in Iran yet?

  2. The chimp looks good for being 80.

    1. He lost out for the part of Ceasar in Rise of the Planet of The Apes and never got over it.

    2. Cobb says Cheetah wasn’t a troublemaker. Still, sanctuary volunteer Ron Priest says that when the chimp didn’t like what was going on, he would throw feces.

      He was a frequent commenter on Hit & Run.

        1. What, too early?

          1. Come back…two years!

    3. Back in my day, we would slowly peel back a face, not all that ripping like the kids do these days.

      And tearing the genitals? – pfaw!

    4. The chimp was a much younger impostor. Came out years ago in Wash. Post.

  3. Zooey Deschanel don’t look half bad without warpaint.


    1. I’ve been DVRing her new show but can’t bring myself to watch it yet.

      1. I’ve been DVRing her new show but can’t bring myself to watch it yet.

        I like her a lot (she was great in Almost Famous), but that show looks absolutely unfunny.

        1. Almost Famous had a lot of stars before they were stars.

        2. Mixed at best. It has its moments of funny and extreme suck.

          1. I suppose I’ll soldier through what I have recorded and see if she’s enough to carry me past the suck.

        3. Didn’t know she had a show. She was cute as a blond in Elf.

      2. I couldn’t make it through the pilot. She was fine in Elf, but the characters she typically plays are just off-putting to me: the cloying, ironic coffeehouse hipster chick who affects a pseudo-quirky manner to disguise a lack of real personality.

        Not surprisingly, her ex-husband appears to be a typical beta goon.

        1. Thirty seconds is all the Will Farrell I can handle.

          1. I attribute the watchability of Old School to the fact that Will Ferrell’s screentime is limited to roughly 30-60 second frames. After that time limit, he starts looking like an even more retarded version of Adam Sandler.

          2. We need more cowbell.

    2. She’s pretty cute, I agree. Her sartorial choices generally make me long to tell her to go back to her room RIGHT NOW and change your clothes, YOUNG LADY. She looks pretty nice in the last one, with her db ex, though, IMO.

      1. looks pretty nice in the last one, with her db ex, though, IMO.

        He looks like Keith Urban with AIDS.

        1. Seriously, she could do much better.

          1. Seriously, she could do much better.

            Yeah, but he’s probably some sort of creative genius, an Operating Thetan, or writes really good beat poetry. You know, the typical shit these Hollywood chicks dig. Merely not having AIDS just can’t compete with all that.

          2. She’s an uber-lib.

            So of course she’s going to fall for some emo pussy.

    3. She’s cute. Her and Ben Gibbard being married fits well as they both make horrible music.

    4. She’s not made up like a Vegas showgirl but she’s wearing as much makeup as your average shop salesgirl. Unless those are radiation burns on her eyelids.

    5. I saw her in HHGTTG and decided she can’t act her way out of a paper bag. I don’t think I’ve seen her in anything since, nor care to.

      Wouldn’t kick her out of bed of course.

      1. Tin Man was pretty good (for a Syfy Channel production).


        1. Aha, could be something to watch with the kid.

        2. I enjoyed Tin Man.

    6. Sarah’s prettier.

  4. Cobb recalled Cheetah as an outgoing chimp who loved finger painting and watching football and who was soothed by Christian music, the station said.

    Cheetah was a Tea Partier.

    1. How can a monkey be racist?

    2. “And he never tore anyone’s face off”

      1. Or scrotums (from what I remember).

        1. How many scrota do you have?

          1. Just one, like most normal dudes. That doesn’t mean a chimp can’t enter a room with two dudes in it and reach the illustrious level of two scrota torn off.

            1. Alriiiight, I got another scrote rip in. I might go for the turkey.

  5. “A 26-year-old woman allegedly had sex with a seven-year-old girl to prove to her love to her married boyfriend.

    Margaret Ann O’Neill told police she performed oral sex on the girl to satisfy the ‘sexual appetite’ of her boyfriend Christopher Smith.”


    1. As long as she continues to molest her until she’s 18, the British judiciary approves of the relationship.

      1. Worth reposting:

        “The judge ruled that Sabaditsch-Wolff committed a crime by stating in her seminars about Islam that the Islamic prophet Mohammed was a pedophile (Sabaditsch-Wolff’s actual words were “Mohammed had a thing for little girls.”)

        The judge rationalized that Mohammed’s sexual contact with nine-year-old Aisha could not be considered pedophilia because Mohammed continued his marriage to Aisha until his death. According to this line of thinking, Mohammed had no exclusive desire for underage girls; he was also attracted to older females because Aisha was 18 years old when Mohammed died….”


        1. It must be true if a judicial lord of liberty says so.

          1. Seriously? Nobody here has said that judges are infallible. Science Damn it!

        2. “The judge ruled that Sabaditsch-Wolff committed a crime by stating in her seminars about Islam that…

          She committed a crime by calling herself “Sabaditsch-Wolff”.

          1. Britain clearly needs another dose of Cromwell.

            1. Austria, dude, RTFA.

              1. I stand behind my statement regardless of where this particular story occurred.

    2. I say we put the woman and her boyfriend in a sack, toss them in the Thames, and let them tear each other apart whilst drowning.

      1. He’ll get a slap on the wrist. Judges don’t do anything to pediphiles until they kidnap and kill a child. And then everyone one is like “could something have been done?” Same sad story over and over. I’m not sure why this keeps happening unless all lawyers and judges are closet pediphiles. Its the only thing that makes sense.

        1. It’s the fucking stupidity of the couple. “He told me if I loved him, I’d commit a heinous crime against an innocent kid.” “I didn’t actually commit the crime.”

          Fuckit. In the sack, in the river, y’all deserve each other unto death.

      2. This happened in Kissimmee, Florida.

        The Niagra river is much more conveniently situated.

        1. As long as there is sacking and water.

    3. There are no rules in anarchy.

      1. In anarchy there are no rules backed by a central authority with the power to impose violence.

        That doesn’t mean there are no rules.

      2. Is that a rule?

      3. What’s the first rule of anarchy?

        1. Don’t talk about anarchy.

          1. Shhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

            1. Ask me “What’s the key to anarchy?”

              “What’s the key t…”


  6. New laws: No caffeine in beer, shark fins in soup


    1. California banned…Robo!
      The kids wil have to sit through “Gay History” without a dextromethorphan buzz.

      1. That’s a clear violation of the Eighth Amendment.

  7. Reason’s Nick Gillespie: Ron Paul ‘needs to explain’ controversial newsletters


    1. Wait. Wait. Do I get to be first?
      Cancel my subscription!!! Woo hoo!!

      1. Some of the Paultard comments at that Daily Caller story are just, well, the word “precious” comes to mind.
        They’re just so adorable when get all riled up.

    2. They were written in English weren’t they? An English Ph.D. should be able to read them just fine. Oh, wait…

  8. Exercise those options Facebook employees, it’ll never be worth as much as the week of the IPO.

    1. That’s what I said about Google. If I had taken that bet, I would be out a lot of money.

      1. Google was still growing when they IPO’d. I can’t figure out where FB’s growth will come from.

        1. I can’t figure out where FB’s growth will come from.

          That’s easy: the remaining ten percent of the earth’s population that is not on Facebook will create a Facebook page.

          1. I can’t figure out where FB’s growth will come from.

            Don’t feel bad – I can’t figure out where FB’s growth came from.

        2. More importantly, where will their revenue come from?

          1. For now, from companies willing to kiss FB’s ass for “access” to the network. I’m dubious about how much commercial value there is to businesses marketing on FB, as it will get annoying pretty quickly.

            1. Will get? It’s more like “has been”.

        3. When even the companies that make money off of your business tank in their IPOs (Zynga, anyone?), it’s time to reconsider going public yourself.

          Unless of course your model all along was to build an overly hyped company with an inscrutable revenue generation model and then take it public at the peak of its popularity and laugh all the way to the bank, then I get it.

          1. I don’t think it’s quite that bad. They do have a massive network, which has some value in itself. The question is, what are they going to do with it and, more importantly, how much commercialization will their users tolerate? From my professional encounters with FB, I think they still aren’t quite sure what their future should be.

            Frankly, I think Google will take over this space if they’re willing to just wait out FB’s dominance. Search, mail, cloud apps, etc. coupled with social media like Google+ is a compelling alternative.

            1. I’m really worn out on facebook. I check it very infrequently anymore. I think, based on my sample of one, that its tide is ebbing. But I don’t think that someone else will necessarily come in to fill a void…the utility of social media is simply not good enough. So I can keep in touch with friends. great. I don’t want to hear where they are at every minute of the day. I don’t want to know how many farmville achievements they’ve made. I don’t really care about 90% of what facebook carries. And that 90% is built on top of the 10% of original features that made it interesting and useful. It’s all fluff, anymore.

              1. I don’t use it except to look when my wife posts pictures from vacations. So, in essence, it’s taken the place of one of those photo-sharing sites.

                I think most of FB’s hundreds of millions of users are equally dormant.

              2. I go on like twice a year and it baffles me that the same people are still posting the same trivial shit all day long, every day. This is in complete contrast to Hit ‘n’ Run, of course.

                1. Which, it turns out, supplants Facebook in 2021.

                  1. I just imagined a Hit&Run; re-discovery called Hit&Run; 2021. You see, what we do is take old comment threads and re-work them into something funny. And voice them over old SeaLab animation.

            2. You have a good point. Google didn’t win the search engine wars by being the first in the fray.


              Not even in the top 15 in ’99. Now, Lycos? Altavista?

        4. Y’all aren’t taking into account that everyone under the age of 18 has basically grown up with the ability to be plugged into social media. Every year freshly minted middle school students plug into facebook for the first time. Obviously there is no such thing as always going up, but I think we aren’t quite to the crest of that ridge yet.

  9. According to Heather Butthurt, the executive director of the National Security Network, “A foreign policy that lets our trading partners collapse (in Europe); fails to engage with new ones as they are busily building ties with each other (Brazil, Turkey, Korea, Indonesia); and lets new disease incubate in the food we import and pollution concentrate in the winds we breathe will kill citizens and impoverish our national treasury as surely as the wars Paul critiques.”


    1. “”””A foreign policy that lets our trading partners collapse (in Europe); “”

      So after more the 60 years of following the foreign policy experts advice and giving Europe loans, grants and free military defense, Europe is still at the brink of collapse. Sounds like the last 60 years did not accomplish much, maybe we should try a different approach.

    2. Heather Butthurt?

      1. Daughter of Herb and Helen Butthurt of Pouthole, Michigan.

        1. It’s Hurlbutt, dummy – and she’s the daughter of that guy who ate cocaine out of his brother’s ass.

          1. tears streaming, thanks

    3. [Ron Paul] is openly disdainful of the use of torture and other extrajudicial tactics that have been utilized to fight it.

      In what bizarro universe is the above a legitimate criticism of anyone?

      1. Uh, to those on Teams RED and BLUE it’s perfectly legit.

  10. Cheetah is dead at 80.

    I had no idea the little fuckers lived that long. RIP, Cheetah. Thanks for the memories.

    1. What I’ll remember most about Cheetah was his professionalism and humility. His skill as an actor, of course, was immense, but he also did some nice turns as a director. And, of course, let’s not forget his success as a producer.

      1. And his achievements as a face tearer offer, let’s not forget that!

        1. Cheetah did no such thing. As his friends know, Cheetah was a peace-loving Quaker and very publicly avoided service in the war as a conscientious objector.

            1. Actually he served under John Kerry in Nam…

            2. That’s Captain Cicero of the Carnival Jungle, a 110-tonner.

              1. Then there were the NASA years

              1. Always with the negative waves, Citizen Nothing, always with the negative waves.

          1. Cheetah did no such thing.

            Cheetah did all these things, and more. That you choose to sweep that under the rug like it never occurred, or to insist that they’re somehow mitigated by his accomplishments in film . . . well, that says a lot about your character, sir.

            1. Was the face unresponsive?

      2. I’ll remember his shit flinging.

        1. They prefer the term “feces.”

  11. So I was called for someone’s political poll and it asked me how i identified politically.

    So it got me thinking, how would people here answer if only given the following?

    Very Liberal
    Very Conservative

      1. Damn you, Sugar.

      2. Good to see you! When I heard that the infamous chain smoking octagenarian chimp had died, I got worried.

        1. Wait. Where’s John?

          1. I don’t think he smokes, does he?

        2. I finger-paint and fling poo, but the similarities end there.

          1. You never let Jane peel your banana?

            1. That’s gross, dude. You’ve really crossed a line. Not cool.

              1. Not the Face! Not the face! ARGGHH!

          2. I finger-paint and fling poo, but the similarities end there.

            A real creative genuis would find a way to combine those two activities.

            1. The art world isn’t ready for my masterpiece: Tebow In Bronco Brown; or A Quarterback Is Born Unto The World

              1. I think you made the Baby Jesus cry.

                1. ‘Bout time the Holiday Child stops sobbing and mans-up.

              2. The art world isn’t ready for my masterpiece:

                Do you use a little plastic Broncos helmet? If so, how do you keep it from slipping off? Glue seems out of the question for a tricky application like this!

                1. I eat cheese for three days before attempting the helmet.

                  1. That’s all well and good, but don’t forget to load up on peanuts.

                    (You need something for the eyes, after all)

    1. “Not Sure,” I guess.

    2. “[click]”

      IOW, I don’t respond to polls. Ever.

      And I’m mentioning this to highlight that there are some people who refuse to be (opinion) polled but who do vote.

      1. I like to keep them on the phone until they say “just a few more questions”, which usually means the next question is the one they need answered to get paid for the survey. At least, that’s how my friends in HS who were survey monkeys did it.

        1. The proper response to a phone solicitation is to put the phone down on the kitchen counter while the solicitor is talking and bang around with some pots and pans. It sends just the right level of dismissive contempt.

          1. I put an end to all solicitation calls about six years ago. Evey time I got one, regardless of whether is was a man or a woman, I would ask, “So what are you wearing?

    3. “Fuck you”, that’s what.

    4. Since “Very Moderate” is not on the list, how can *anyone* answer truthfully?

    5. If it was a human being I would politely try to educate that person and say I am a libertarian, write that down on your survey. If it was a robot I would hang up.

      1. I did that one time I was called for a survey.

        Then there was the time in 2010 when I was asked whether Andrew Cuomo should run for Governor or re-election as Attorney General and my response was that he should resign.

  12. Hey, fellas. I was away for a week or so. Nobody ever mentioned those Ron Paul newsletters or tried to use them against him, did they? No? Guess Old Mex and robc were right!

    1. It’s hard not to gloat, but I will refrain for decorum’s sake.

    2. Dulce et decorum est.

    3. Nobody ever mentioned those Ron Paul newsletters or tried to use them against him, did they?

      Silly goose! The media and the Republican establishment recognize what an important milestone RP’s campaign represents, and have taken the high road here. You won’t be seeing the newsletters dredged up in a tawdry attempt to smear or discredit Ron Paul. In fact, what newsletters?

    4. His poll numbers are still up. I was right.

      I never said someone wanted TRY, I said they wouldnt suceed.

      1. Paul’s national polling numbers are at a new all-time high.


        1. New Iowa PPP, taken on Dec 26-27:

          Paul 24%
          Romney 20%
          Gingrich 13%
          Bachmann 11%
          Perry 10%
          Santorum 10%

          It appears the newsletter story is crushing Gingrich somehow.

          Damn, CN, could you have been MORE wrong?

          1. Believe me, I have been way more wrong many, many times.

            1. It’s because America is still a racist nation. That’s why we’ve never elected a black person to be president.

    5. Whenever I see them brought up I remind them of Jeremiah Alvesta Wright.

  13. XOMG can feminists write more like spoiled High School girls:


    1. That’s the frequent commenter that became a contributor, by the way. She was hired for her snarky butthurtedness.

    2. Small request? Please copypasta the…errr….”relevant” text so I don’t have to click over to that site? Pretty please?

      1. “Relevant” text:

        You’re welcome.

      2. I just want to say that you are awesome. I learn something new every time I wiki your “word of the week” (for lack of a better term). Thanks!

  14. Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who along with Newt Gingrich didn’t submit the required number of signatures to petition to make it onto the Virginia Republican presidential primary ballot, is taking the fight for ballot access to federal court.

    Who doesn’t want a president who uses federal courts to invalidate a state’s rules?

    1. The GOP should kick them out of the party for filing a lawsuit against the GOP.

    2. The Team Red and Team Blue establishments do use arcane primary rules to exclude those potential nominees who lack their blessings. Its important to exclude potential troublemakers dontchaknow.

      1. From what I understand, the state required 10K verified signatures. Perry got exactly 10K signatures and assumed every goddamn one of them would check out.

        That’s not a fault of arcane primary rules so much as it is continuing evidence of piss-poor management and/or outright stupidity.

        1. “What do you mean Felchy Santorum isn’t a real person?”

  15. Iran will block the Straight of Hormuz if Europe interferes with its nuclear program.

    This waterway NEEDS an enema!


    2. Iran’s navy will shortly be resting comfortably on the bottom of the Strait if it gets too uppity, I am quite sure.

      I’m wondering, how much oil does China get through the Strait?

      1. You want us to fuck around with the fearsome Iranian Navy?!

    3. A high enema, if you catch my drift.

  16. STRAIT of Hormuz, Mike, strait.

    Get it straight or you’ll be in dire straits.

  17. Marge Simpson is still hot.

      1. Cleavage isn’t SFW?
        I hate your world.

        1. It depends on what your boss sees you cleaving.

          1. Stealing from your boss is still OK, right?

    1. “If You’re Shopping Online Right Now, You’re Probably Drunk”

      Ever since they blocked Amazon at work, I’ve been drinking much less. Honestly, is this a problem with men? I mean, there are so many other things on the interwebz to look at while drunk that cost nothing.

    2. Why don’t you ask the Poles and Czechs if they live in a better world now that the USSR is gone, hmm? Acting like the Warsaw Pact of 1989 wasn’t an evil organization is ridiculous and shameful.

      I’m lucky to be one of the first people who can’t even remember the USSR.

      1. One heroic industrialist man privately owned and controlled a whole nation.

        He was named after Hank Rearden’s Metal.


      2. Jesus. Yes, the world is safer without two massive nuclear powers facing each other down. What a dumb idea.

        A better question is whether we’ve wasted the opportunities given to us and the rest of the freeish world that came after the collapse. I think the answer is “Not really” in Eastern Europe, and “Mostly” in the rest of the world. Even in Eastern Europe, I think we had a chance to maybe pull Russia more to the West, but we preferred schadenfreude to policy at the time.

  18. NY Times Uses Deceptive Statistics to Promote Anti-Gun Agenda. Again.


    1. Heather Butthurt?

    2. I like the statistic that members of Mayors Against Illegal Guns are 8 times more likely to be convicted of a crime than a NC CCW permit holder.

  19. Hippy chicks with guns, cats and dogs playing together…

    “I’m a yoga instructor, I work at a vegan bakery — and I also like to shoot guns.”


    1. The target shooting industry now caters to female shooters. There are pink pistols,

      Yes, a pistol being pink is exactly a primary characteristic I look for in a gun. FFS.

      1. Candy colored guns were a reaction to pinheaded gun bans based on gun color.

        Also, if you talk to gun shop owners, you will find that they always get a new flock of women coming in to buy a gun just after a well-publicized shooting.

        1. I imagine more women do go in for guns after a shooting, but I am pretty sure they don’t become interested in guns because someone colored one pink. Why is it that marketers think the way to a woman’s heart is to color something pink (or at all, for that matter), and then somehow it becomes a “woman’s product.” It’s fricking annoying, and infantilizing. Do men buy a certain gun because someone colors them baby blue (or some other “masculine” color– oh wait, it isn’t “masculine,” is it, because baby blue is a color associated with children)? But leaving that aside, do men buy a particular gun because it’s colored, or because it fits their hand the way they want, has a heft they like, and fires comfortably for them?

          1. I have a STEADFAST rule when it comes to my guns: Since I do not make a living with a rifle or a pistol, life is too short to own an ugly gun.

            Though heft, feel, etc is paramount, if it’s ugly, I don’t even try it on.

          2. I have known men who buy cars because they are cherry red.

            You can pretty much bet that some tricked out gun with appeal to a certain kind of black man, if you know what I mean. Nigga likes him some bling.

    2. I once ran into my yoga instructor at a gun show. Tallahassee is like that.

      1. I once rammed into my yoga instructor after she said, is that a gun, or are you happy to see me?

      2. Then you had hot tantric anal buttsex?

        1. No. She’s married, and her husband’s a nice guy. Besides, if you sleep with the instructor and piss her off, you have to find a new hunting ground. If you sleep with students and piss them off, not so much.

    3. Most states require training and safety courses before using firearms, and there are programs popping up throughout the country teaching women to do just that.

      Actually, I’m fairly sure that most states do not require training and safety courses before using firearms, though some states do mandate taking a hunter safety course before a hunting license can be issued.

      Also, many shooting clubs require a safety class to qualify for membership.

      Good instruction in both safety and technique are good thing for a gun owner to have. As most here agree, I believe, good things do not need to be mandated by the state.

      < favorite gripe about “liberal Hollywood writers >
      Watching a crime/spy show recently I was struck by the hero worrying that his girlfriend would get into trouble for the “unregistered firearms” in the trunk of her car if the Miami police stopped her. Ummm…memo to the writers of Burn Notice, there is no such thing as an “unregistered firearm” in the State of Florida (nor in the majority of other states). There is no requirement to register a firearm with any government agency in the state, nor is there any requirement to get a license or permit to own one. There are some annoying hurdles to actually buying one but that’s a different story.

      < /favorite gripe about “liberal Hollywood writers >

      1. She definitely won’t get in trouble for blowing up other people’s private property every week, though. You can just walk away from that.

        1. Yeah, also, Michael seemed to be way more upset about her “unregistered firearms” than he was about the fact that she was driving a stolen car.


      2. Not having a proper BATFE license for many of those rifles would be a federal offense. I doubt Fiona qualifies for a BATFE license. Cut down shotguns and full-auto definitely require federal licensure.

        1. It’s not actually a license so much as a tax stamp.

        2. Brett, it’s still bullshit.

          As near as I could tell Fi had a semi-auto scoped rifle, a bolt action scoped rifle, a tactical shotgun with a barrel well within BATFE guidelines and a collection of pistols. I don’t know of any law in Florida that restricts these.

          Now if the problem is that she’s of indeterminate national origin and may be in the US illegally, that’s a different question. There is no protocol under which an illegal alien can legally own firearms in the US registered or otherwise.

          My larger point is that the writers seem to be awfully fuzzy on what is legal and what is not under various state and national laws in any number of crime/espionage/military dramas that they write.

  20. Cheetah is dead at 80.

    It always bugged me that they didn’t call this chimpanzee “Giraffe” instead of Cheetah. What were they thinking?

    1. They had other things on their minds?

    2. He wasn’t named after the cat. His name stems from his many, many marital problems.

      1. I know; the babes just can’t resist the ol’ poo-flinging move.

      2. Then why didn’t they name him “Playah”?

        Too racist?

        1. That wasn’t a term of art back when Cheetah was active.

    1. The irony is that condoms would make work less safe due to the increased friction.

      1. Friction. Heat. Energy. Are we missing an alternative energy source here?

        1. Worked in Crank.

  21. It always bugged me that they didn’t call this chimpanzee “Giraffe” instead of Cheetah. What were they thinking?

    If I ever own a chimp, I’m going to name him Face Tearer Offer.

  22. Mobile, Alabama Mayor Sam Jones — member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns — held a burglary suspect at gunpoint, with a gun he might have been carrying illegally.


  23. Any authoritarian-statist updates from Bleeding Butthole Libertarian today?

    1. It should really be called “Libertarians Trying To Get Tenure.”

      1. The libertarians who do have tenure got it by hiding their libertarianism.

        1. and peeling bananas…

        2. My point exactly.

          Especially poignant is how they praise Bastiat without, apparently, understanding a thing he said… but then people who favor property rights are “right-libterarians” and are evil Republicans mumble mumble.

          1. SF and SIV realizing that they are even on the fringes of libertarianism, which is a fringe movement itself…Priceless.

            You are. As Tulpa has noted here before most respectable libertarians are utilitarians (think the law and economics movement and Friedman-type economists), not deontologists. People who think government intrusion creates more problems than it solves are interesting. People who flatly rule out coercion even, say, to save a child’s life, because PROPERTY RIGHTZ IS ABSOLUTE are on the fringes where they belong.

            1. So why aren’t people who say that saving the life of even one American child, no matter what the cost (in money, liberty, in the lives children of other nationalities, blah, blah, blah) on the fringes, too?
              Just askin’.

              1. Because that is the point. For most people actual human welfare trumps other concerns. Of course “family” matters and American lives tend to play better, but if someone out there were blatantly saying they would sacrifice kids foriegn or domestic for some abstract value like a property right they would probably be escorted to the fringe. As Jesus said, the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath…

                1. Because that is the point.

                  Sigh. Fine. I tried.

                  1. Look, you don’t have to be a juvenile all your life. Why not instead try to honestly understand what someone else is saying before retreating back into the echo-chamber of H&R and it’s right-leaning hipster snark?

                    Here’s exactly what I said: that if you weigh things, whether that be abstract ideas like property rules, or even material things, more than human welfare as, say, measured in the well being or life of a child, then that tends to make you look extreme and on the fringe. Then you said “well, what about people who say we should expend lots of resources to save the life of one child, should they not be on that fringe” and I said “of course not, the entire point of what I said is that human welfare measures like the life of a child vastly outweigh other concerns when balanced.”

                    So, if you want to drop the snark, what was I (sigh!) missing there?

                    1. You know what, MNG?
                      #1: You’re too goddamned disingenuous or stupid to follow the logic of your own arguments or to correctly understand those that differ with your own.

                      #2: I’m a sophomoric flibbertigibbet who will never be able to, or bother with, parsing out you’re oh-so-subtle points.

                      If you want to vote #2, you certainly won’t be alone. And you may be right.


                    2. Fuck you CN. I don’t know what bug is up your butt lately, but we’ve had two or three exchanges here, that’s all. I’ve tried to honestly explain where I am coming from in detail, and yet I get this goofy hipster snark from you instead of the same treatment, and now you throwing your hands up and running back to your echo chamber. If you think I missed something then why not take ONE post to try to explain it further before going “oh sigh, I tried, this guy is hopeless!”

                      Look, this is a democracy. And your view is currently a minority one. If you believe in what you believe in the only way you are going to see it implemented is in persuading people, especially people like me who are at least willing to come to your site and hear you out. If people like me don’t automatically agree with you or see your point it may, I dunno, be because we don’t share a gazillion assumptions with your philosophy. Throwing up your hands and running back to a circle jerk of like minded folks is helpful, how?

                    3. That human life is worth more than abstract rules like property laws is pretty ingrained in our moral society. Look at our laws that, even in days in which property was held much more sancrosanct like in the old common law days, forbid one to set up a lethal trap for trespassers, or the old “necessity” defense that allowed property violations to save human lives.

                      Likewise our society has also thought expenditures of material resources to save a life is justified. Now, if you want to point out that there is a problem here in that resources expended could have been better spent to save more overall lives, then sure, you’ve got a point. People are often irrational especially when things like children and immediately dire situations are involved. But none of that (sigh!) undermines what I was saying.

                    4. if you want to point out that there is a problem here in that resources expended could have been better spent to save more overall lives, then sure, you’ve got a point. People are often irrational especially when things like children and immediately dire situations are involved…

                      So you did understand my point but chose to ignore it. I see. I want a re-vote.

                    5. Why couldn’t you just say that? Why all the hipster drama?

                      Is your point that people should realize that in irrationally rushing to expend lots of resources to “save the life of even one child” they are damaging other (maybe child) lives?

                      Well, if you would have skipped the drama and elaborated you would find I agree with you. But notice that’s the kind of thing a utilitarian libertarian can “live” with, because it is just an empirical confusion separating you from that irrational person, not some absolute line. The deontologist doesn’t make that argument, he says “we can’t expend that resource to save the life of even one child because it would be more wrong to coercivelly take the resource.”

                      And THAT was my point.

              2. I don’t agree that we’re mostly utilitarians. We may see utility in libertarianism, but most of the libertarians I know also believe as they do because they consider libertarianism more morally right than other systems.

                1. I agree that most libertarians I run into are deontologists, my point was that most “respectable libertarians” (i.e., the ones that are not thought of as nuts by most non-libertarians) were utilitarians.

                  Deontologists are kind of by definition extreme…

                  1. The whole idea with deontology is “this line must never be crossed, never, ever, no matter what is balanced on the other side of the moral ledger” It’s pretty absolute and extreme. Don’t get me wrong, that’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it is kind of necessarily an extreme one.

                    I find in most moral and political disagreements its not reason that is messing up, it’s just that in any debate there are values on both sides and the values are weighted differently by different folks. Everyone I know puts some value on, say, liberty, non-coercion or property rights, but man libertarians tend to put a lot more weight there than many others. Then when you argue with someone that doesn’t share that view they come off as evil “Statist fucks” (because only an evil person would weigh the libertarian values so comparitively low) or “disinengenous” (because no person would “really” put such a “low” value on what is “obviously” so compelling).

                    But what a position for a small minority to be in, walking around thinking the vast majority of your fellow man, neighbors and co-workers are evil, disingenous statist fucks! The utilitarian libertarian can at least think that those that don’t agree just haven’t worked out some empirical issue yet (for example, that program X actually harms more humans than it helps).

            2. Hey look everybody, it’s MNG. Hi MNG.

            3. You can take your “respect” and shove it straight up your ass.

              What a shitty argument: “YOU GOT NO REZPECT MAN! WHY CANT YOU JUS B REZPECTABLE!” with a slight overtones of “FOR DEH CHILDRENZ”.

      2. Oh Jesus, SIV and SF in a paleo-hipster lovefest? I guess it was moving in that direction…

    2. I’d love to help you but I just cancelled my subscription.

  24. It’s not the newsletters that are going to sink Paul with the GOP, it’s his non-interventionist policy. I caught Fox and CNN the other day and saw first Huckabee, then Gingrich, then Romney all say they could not support Paul because he would not sufficiently want to intervene in Iran. In 08 they skewered him over this too (and torture and the WOT, remember Romney and Ghouliania trying to one-up each other on how they would double Gitmo and waterboarding and ganging up on Paul on the issue).

    It’s disgusting. I hope he surprises these bastards in Iowa, though I can’t see much hope for him in the military-worshipping Southern states like S. Carolina…

    1. The south? Well it will be hard on the pro-empire types but they also will not want to vote for that devil worshipping Mormon creature either.

      1. Paul’s lowest numbers are in S. Carolina. The South has always loved it some pork, but because of its conservatism and racism it can’t come in social programs, so they get it in military projects.

        I remember my respect for Paul, which has always been high, shot up exponentially when at a debate in S. Carolina he flatly said he would take a cutting knife to the military budget. The crowd booed of course, but Paul really displayed his trademark courage there.

        1. But what of the Mormon boogeyman?

          1. Does the militarism of the South > their general intolerance? Yeah, I think so. Romney spoke at the Citadel and promised to increase, that’s right INCREASE defense budgets as President. That plays to the Southern GOP like a lap dance does to Elliot Spitzer.

            1. Iirc McCain won S. Carolina last time. War hero, bomb, bomb, Iran, that kind of stuff overrode even the social conservative appeal of the Huckabee. That’s powerful.

              1. Yet that asshole Gingrich couldn’t even get on the Virginia ballot. I think there’s more to it than just jingoism.

                1. That’s not some discretionary thing. Gingrich has comparatively a poor organization, he just didn’t make the requirements. Those state election boards usually have equal number of Dems and GOPers on them, so sympathy for Gingrich won’t help.

        2. conservatism and racism

          And don’t forget tractor pulls.

          1. Do you enjoy tractor pulls? I don’t, and I mock those who do. I mean, wtf, is it horribly wrong to like some cultural things more than others and express that?

            I’ve always thought this was goofy and really based in this idea that “hey, you’re a liberal, you’re supposed to be a hyper-tolerant, multicultural relativist, but we caught you judging people! Nah, nah, nah!”

            Sorry I didn’t reinforce your caricature of liberals. I do make those kind of stereotypical judgments all the time. You “got” me…

            1. Do you enjoy tractor pulls?

              Nope. It’s genetic, a result of my mother and sister not being the same person. Having said that, I LOVE me some jet truck. Have you ever seen that thing? They run it at airshows. It’s literally a pickup truck with a jet engine mounted to the bed. Tops out somewhere north of 300mph.

            2. I’ve always thought this was goofy and really based in this idea that “hey, you’re a liberal, you’re supposed to be a hyper-tolerant, multicultural relativist, but we caught you judging people! Nah, nah, nah!”

              That tolerance (well, fetishizing, really) only extends towards non-white and/or non-Southern cultural mores. I thought this was universally understood.

              1. ^^THIS^^

                Liberals are more likely to try and empathize with a Pakistani hooker than with someone who lives a few miles outside of town.

                The cultural elitism has a purpose in their circles however. It’s a sign to both themselves and others around them that they are better than the guy in front of them in the grocery store line who’s wearing RealTree?.

        3. . . . at a debate in S. Carolina he flatly said he would take a cutting knife to the military budget.

          It’s a crying shame that the very quality which sets him apart from every other politician in this race is the same quality which will ensure he’s not elected, or probably even nominated.

        4. Fuck you. Not everyone in the South is a racist or a homophobe or conservative.

      2. We worship the military in the South? Is there a particular branch we prefer, or is it just all things militaristic?

        I don’t think anyone argues here–at all–that Paul’s weakness, and really his only major one within the GOP, is his foreign policy positions. While many of us tend to agree with him to varying extents, adherents of both major parties tend to want to keep empire-building. So threats to that are viewed with disdain at best.

        1. It’s pretty general Pro, as long as the branch involves dressing up and shooting people they love it down South.

          Remember when Alabama’s Senator, a “cut the government Tea Partier”, put the hold on legislation? It was over a cut to defense spending in his district.

        2. You grit-eating fuckers worship the Coast Guard. Don’t deny it.

          1. Only when we’re drunk and maudlin.

          2. Who else is gonna save my beer cooler when it goes overboard in the Gulf?

            1. God bless their good works.

              1. They’re doing God’s work in some of America’s roughest waters.

    2. But couldn’t foreign policy help in those states that allow crossover voting, especially if the other candidates all split the “hawk” vote?

      1. Sadly CN many lefties and indies are not going to see Obama for a hawk. They will just think “hey, the Dems are soft on that kind of thing”, something the GOP has actually had a big hand in cultivating over the years…

        1. But I’m thinking strategery here. Why even vote in the Dem primary? If there ever was a time in which to jump to the other party to try to influence their nominee, it would be now.
          Heck, Paul’s camp ought to be pumping the “Paul-can’t-beat-Obama” meme behind the scenes, just to encourage Dems to vote Paul.

          1. If you’re state is not an open primary that will cause a lot of people to not cross. I don’t want to register GOP to vote for Paul, even if I do prefer him to Obama (I was willing to do it for Johnson, but that’s not an issue now he’s gone LP).

            In open primaries yes Paul could attract Dems and indies, McCain did it. But I think while it is “obvious” around here that Obama is a hawk too it is less obvious to most other people. Libya was seen as pretty small potatoes (the last I heard it cost us 1 billion dollars and no casualties) and they see him drawing down in Afghanistan and Iraq.

            1. I think the best way for Paul, or any libertarian, to draw Indie and Dem support is to play up the anti-WOD angle. Obama flat out reneged and dithered on his medical marijuana promises, he deserves no support for that alone imo.

        2. They will just think “hey, the Dems are soft on that kind of thing”, something the GOP has actually had a big hand in cultivating over the years

          And this is why the GOP will circle the wagons against Paul no matter his strengths in any other issue. The party is loathe to surrender its primary electoral advantage at the Federal level. It’s a better idea long-term to keep that image going than to nominate a candidate that best satisfies the fickle public’s disgust with whatever domestic policy shenanigans that might have been occurred for the past 20+ years.

          1. I hear you, but I don’t think it’s merely electoral advantage. They actually are into that jingoism in the GOP.

            I don’t know if you remember a while back when National Review, in a cover article by David Frum no less, drummed out of the conservative movement notable conservatives that opposed the Iraq War, labeling them essentially traitors that hated America. Warmongering is a defining issue with this crowd.

    3. The problem with the South is, as Mencken put it, that the best stock was killed off in the Civil War. And they have only become jingoist nationalists because of the welfare provided by the military bases built there during the Cold War.

  25. Dumbest Democrat and Republican Quotes of 2011



  26. Speaking of poo-flinging, look who crawled out of his ditch.

  27. Paul’s weakness, and really his only major one within the GOP, is his foreign policy positions.

    I hate to say it, but I see Paul’s “foreign policy weaknesses” as pretty much a sideshow.

    How many campaign contributions has Doctor Paul received from Goldman Sachs or Citibank? What Titans of Industry flank him on the podium when he speaks? Do you think Jeff Immelt expects to carry on in his high visibility “jobs creation consultant” job in a Ron Paul administration?

    When was the last time Kindly Old Grandpa Buffett invited him over for bridge and apple cider on the front porch?

    1. Yes, the fact that he’ll try to cut off the gravy train is significant as well. But that’s not his problem with GOP voters at large. I’ve tried to push Paul on Republicans I know, and their objections are almost universally related to concerns that he’ll weaken us militarily and make us vulnerable to attack.

      1. Doesn’t spreading our military out all over the globe actually make us weaker and vulnerable to attack? Any military historian can dredge up numerous examples of this. You know who else thought he could win a two front war.

        1. Not if real, existential threats to our us are numerous and all over the globe. And that is how many in the GOP see it. Talk to them, watch their shows, they are always talking about dangerous threats here and there. Islamaphobia. Russia reasserting itself. China asserting itself. Chavez threatening us. We have to be everywhere to fight that.

          GOPers aren’t evil, they just see more and more dangerous threats around us. That’s why they see Paul as flat out naive but dangerous. Iran is going to blow up Israel and the US, donchaknow (and in fairness to them Iran has done and said things that make a reasonable person somewhat wary of them).

  28. “But that’s not his problem with GOP voters at large.”


    “their objections are almost universally related to concerns that he’ll weaken us militarily and make us vulnerable to attack.”

    Double yup.

    I will say it seems to be a positive thing that most GOPers I run into that won’t support Paul don’t bring up his WOD stance as the reason.

    1. I agree. It’s the foreign policy thing. If he’d just bow down and worship satan he would be given power over all the lands he can see.

  29. I don’t know very many actual Republicans. What I foresee is the crony capitalist vote banding together, pulling out their checkbooks, and stoking the boilers on the “Anybody but Paul” train. I do not see them, even for a moment, hesitating to throw in with Mittens.

    1. I agree completely. The last person they want is Paul.

      1. In theory maybe. But look, these things can be played many ways. If you are a direct beneficiary of the federal government then I can’t see you supporting Paul. But a lot of companies and people feel burdens from the feds too, and that would play well with them.

        Maybe we will get lucky and Paul will be a major player in this nomination, heck maybe even win. But if he doesn’t it will not be because of his stance against crony capitalistm, it will be because interventionist foriegn policy (especially in areas like “defending Israel” and “fighting terror”) and support for militarism is increasingly joining abortion and taxation in becoming a litmus test for GOP candidates.

      2. I’d argue that they’re so opposed to Paul that even if he were to somehow win the nomination, they’d get Mittens or Newt to run as an independent just to throw the election to Obama.

        Teams RED and BLUE are but two wings of the same party. WIth establishment guys, they know it doesn’t matter who wins because statism will endure. With Paul, a wrench gets thrown in to the machine and NEITHER team wins.

        Expect Team RED to do anything and everything to keep Paul from getting the nomination, and if he does, expect a 3rd party run with a Team RED establishmentarian to throw the election to Obama.

  30. And- The overwhelming majority of the objection to Paul’s “isolationist” policies, as far as I can see, is based on the terror threat to the gravy train.

  31. Kinda makes you wonder some times.


  32. Learned your lesson yet, CN?

    1. Yes, he entered an exchange with someone who wasn’t immediately converted. That is a cardinal sin for SF. He should run back into the echo chamber of Drudge links, comparisons of hot chicks, Game of Thrones reviews, calling those who disagree with you “fucks” and Bastiat quotes…

      1. I actually remember when SF “realized” I was being “disengenous” and not worth arguing with. I mentioned that libertarians should not always get on the high horse about how they were always against violent coercion because they realized violently making someone do what they didn’t want to do was OK sometimes. SF said “When?” and I said, well, when someone is trespassing or when someone is attacking you, you support police coming and using force to make that guy stop what he was doing (that’s the literal definition of violent and coercion btw). He went ballistic, “Don’t you know that’s TOTALLY different? That’s violence as retaliation not initiating violence! Lord you must be disengenous not to see that and see how crucial that is!”

        Of course “in retaliation” and “inititated” are not in the normal, usual definitions of the concepts “violent” and “coercive.” And THAT was my entire poin, that this was a critical, “obvious” assumption to many libertarians that was simply not so “obviously critical” to others. It’s actually a very common point made by non-libertarians trying to understand libertarians. But of course, it was just me being disengenous, so SF went back to debating with only “honest” (in other words, people who agreed with him on everthing important) people.

        1. vi?o?lence/?v?(?)l?ns/Noun: 1.Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something

          noun?/k???rZH?n/ ?/-SH?n/?
          coercions, plural

          1.The practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats

          Note, neither concept includes this idea of “justifying retaliation for initial violent coercion.” That’s something imported in as a critical assumption for libertarians. That was of course my point in that discussion.

          But of course, I was just being disengenous. It’s obvious.

        2. So are you saying that if someone breaks into my house I should just let them steal my stuff and ass rape me because I believe in the NAP?

          Honest question, I want to make sure I am understanding you correctly.

  33. You guys are so mean.

    An adult shows up and generously donates his time and infinitely superior wisdom in an effort to raise you up from the muck and mire of juvenile ignorance, and you make fun of him.

    It’s a tragedy, is what it is.

    1. The best day of my life was when I realized that people could stay wrong on the internet and I didn’t have to care.

    2. Actually, I come hear to learn about a political philosophy that I respect. But when something doesn’t jibe to me I say so. I don’t think I’m being disengenous in doing that, quite the opposite, and yes I lament the juvenile knee jerk response to that.

      Talking with libertarians has taught me a lot and actually changed my opinions on things. I’m a much stronger fan of the market as a vehicle for respecting individual efforts and promoting the general welfare than most liberals I know and I think the tie between property rights and other rights is more critical than they do. I got that from reading Reason and talking with folks here. Specifically my debates with TAO convinced me that cap and trade, something I didn’t want to support anyway, was inherently unworkable.

      1. “Talking with libertarians has taught me a lot and actually changed my opinions on things.”

        I should add though, that it’s often also made me realize how there is a significant number of libertarians who are essentially selfish, juvenile, misanthropic assholes who just want to hang out with other people in agreement with them and condesendingly lament how stupid and evil the rest of the world is for not being converted to their view in every facet. It’s a crazy view for a minority viewpoint in a democracy, but there you have it.

        1. If you talk to a group of any political stripe it’s going to be the same way. When my wife worked for one of the apartment complexes at our college the student staff was all democrat and they “just want(ed) to hang out with other people in agreement with them and condesendingly lament how stupid and evil the rest of the world is for not being converted to their view in every facet.”

          Of course they thought they were being completely selfless and quite mature for their views.

  34. Heather Butthurt

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.