A.M. Links: Newt Goes Negative, Ron Paul Crosses His Fingers, FDA Predicts Adderall Shortage Through 2012

|

  • Newt Gingrich finally calls Romney a name ("liar"). 

  • Ron Paul from Iowa last night: "We, the people, are growing and I'm optimistic." 
  • The DEA will continue to interrupt the supply of ADHD drugs through 2012. 
  • The liberal paper of record wonders if America is "prepared for a grinding, lengthy ground war in Asia." 
  • Retail gift returns are up 8 percent this year. 
  • Crude climbs over Iran tension. 

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: "Government Tracking Our Kids?!—Lisa Snell Discusses Student Privacy on CNN's OutFront"

NEXT: Reason.tv in Iowa: Why Are People Digging Ron Paul?

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. 9 AM my ass.

    1. Like flies on shit. Swarm!

    2. “9:00AM” gets typed almost first – before the list/links are, methinks. Has nothing to do with when the Send button is hit. It’s like airline flights departing “on time” if they’ve pulled away from the terminal on time. Never mind when the passengers are actually on their way.

      1. That hits too close to home, Ice, considering that I spent an hour sitting on the runway for every hour spent in the air this holiday season.

        On the plus side, the Detroit TSA were very friendly and efficient and my hair hasn’t started falling out from the Rapiscan yet.

        1. Nothing is lamer than the Detroit TSA. I flew back in from China, waited in line for a couple hours just to pass through, somebody had thrown up (likely another poor soul just in off a 15-hr international flight from a couple hours before).

          No, nobody bothered to clean it.

          1. Maybe it’s because I’m a minimally-beared person of pallor, or maybe it’s just because it was Jan 2nd, but it was pretty rapid and pretty clean.

            1. *bearded. Minimally-bearded.

              Though I guess “beared” works in the context…

            2. minimally-beared

              So, you only look a little bit like a muscular, hairy gay man?

          2. You had to go through security after your flight?

            WTF???

        2. It’s not your hair you need to worry about.

        3. You do the Rapescan? The grope is so much more fun!

            1. I like moaning softly to the agent.

          1. No. It isn’t. But I feel it’s my moral duty to show everyone else in line what our government does to us in the name of security (theater).

            I’m going to have a shirt that reads, on both sides, “This is what Freedom looks like” to better show our fellow citizens how badly we’re being fucked.

            The TSA should be disbanded.

      1. Good morning!

  2. What – no eggs?

  3. Richard Cohen: Isolationism redux via Ron Paul
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

    Paul opposes just about all international treaties and organizations. He would have the United States pull out of the United Nations and NATO. He would do away with foreign aid, abolish the CIA and essentially turn his back on the rest of the world. This is pretty much what used to be called isolationism, and it allowed Hitler to presume, quite correctly as it turned out, that America would not interfere with his plans to conquer Europe, Britain included. It took Germany’s declaration of war on the United States, not the other way round, to get Uncle Sam involved.

    1. Did Ron Paul say he would abolish the CIA?

      1. We can neither confirm nor deny this.

      2. In 1988 he said he was going to rename it.

    2. 1938 meme is stuck in 1938.

      1. In the Neo-Con, Neo-Liberal world, its always 1938 and there is always another Hitler.

        1. Yeah, stupid huh. It’s only essentially the history of the world.

          1. So what are you saying? We should have started getting involved in European wars sooner?

            1. No,I’m only saying that the Europeans – and everyone else without a couple oceans to protect them – have throughout history perpetually been at war, either attacking or defending. That’s all. Well, that, and that those oceans aren’t all that helpful these days. What anyone wants to do about it is another issue.

    3. What, is that like the same kind of isolationism we had up until the day the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor? And if my calculations are correct, we were able to mobilize and beat both the Japanese and the Germans in under 4 years, which is half the time it took our current juggernaut of an army to “win” in Iraq. I can’t compare it to Afghanistan since we still haven’t fucking won there.

      1. Not to mention that we were basically equipping the entire British war effort prior to Germany declaring war on us.

        1. Yeah, but they’re limeys. I can supply an entire British War effort with what I’ve got in my panty and garage.

          1. panty. yup. let the pile-on commence.

            1. Obviously a Santorum supporter.

              1. Santorum supporter

                Is that anything like an egg separator?

                1. You’ve got a little santorum in your hair, there.

      2. And the goals keep enlarging.

      3. Different world then. We were able to do that because no one could touch our industrial base. Now with ballistic missiles, they can.

        1. And thanks to ballistic missiles, we can reduce any country dumb enough to attempt a full scale assault on the US into a pile of rubble with the push of a button, so I think it’s a wash.

        2. And whose ballistic missiles, pray tell, are we talking about, John? The fucking Iranians? The Norks?

          Both of those regimes are still using rubber bands as their main method of propulsion.

          1. No they are not. The NORKs could hit SOCAL today. And the Chinese and Russians could make rubble of every city in the country.

            Here is how it would play out. No one wants to have an exchange of missiles. So the conventional war would be limited. And if they kicked our ass, we would have to just eat shit and live with it in order to avoid the risk of losing a city. If Japan had had nukes in 1941, we probably would have made peace with them and given them what they wanted after Pearl Harbor.

            1. Damn, John, it’s like you know everything!

            2. John, while the Norks’ rockets might be powerful to hit California, their guidance is fucking terrible. They would be lucky to hit Seoul with an aimed shot. They’d be equally likely to nuke Mongolia as Cali.

              Rockets are fairly simple machines that require very tight tolerances. There’s a group of Danes who have literally manufactured one on their spare time. Guidance is far more complex.

            3. The NORKs could theoretically hit SOCAL. What are the odds of it actually working? And how many times could they hit SOCAL before they ceased to exist?

              Who cares about the Chinese and Russians? They are stable and deeply immersed in the global economy. They know all about mutual annihilation and will avoid it as diligently and we would.

              No need to live in fear John. You’ve got a better chance of being hit by lightning than dying from the bomb.

              1. Last I heard though, Iran does not have the rocket power to hit the US.

            4. The NORKs could hit SOCAL today.

              [citation please]

              And the Chinese and Russians could make rubble of every city in the country.

              But then their entire industrial base would lose their largest customer and their people would starve. There’s no fathomable reason the Chinese would even consider bombing us. As far as the Russians go: [citation please] as they’ve lacked this ability for at least 2 decades.

              1. As far as the Russians go: [citation please] as they’ve lacked this ability for at least 2 decades.

                I may be wrong, but I’m fairly sure the Russkies still have an arsenal that’s quite capable of getting ICBMs with multiple warheads onto US territory. Even during the Cold War there were questions about their actual accuracy*.

                The bigger question is why would they do it now when we’re on pretty good terms when they refrained from doing so in the thirty or forty years we were openly hostile to each other and they had the capability.

                *Actually their were questions about the accuracy of ours as well. For obvious reasons we, and they, had never fird a missile over the pole to test it. All our, and their, tests had been essentially due east or west over the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans. We only had simulations to try to correct for the drift that occurs in inertial guidence systems in polar regions.

                But even if accuracy was a problem it’s a given with nukes that a miss is just as bad as a hit. Because someone’s gonna get fried either way.

                1. The Russians have spent an awful lot of money on their Bulava ICBM series, for a country that ostensibly lacks a ICBM deterrent. Not to mention that Russian rocket engines are among the most reliable and efficient today.

                  The great circle distance from Pyongyang to LAX is 9569 km, FWIW; which weirdly is the exact distance between Tehran and Boston. Just to give some perspective on evaluating Korean or Iranian rocketry efforts.

              2. Agreed. Citation please. All I’ve read about concerns their modified SS-N-6 IRBM, which barely has the range to reach Guam. But see this post, discussing Sec. Def. Gates’s comments about North Korea developing a road-mobile ICBM.

                Again, they’ve yet to demonstrate an actual working nuke, as their only (?) test so far fizzled, AFAIK. But I agree that, if they want to keep plugging away at both problems, they’ll eventually solve them.

                Seems like the sort of thing that AEGIS/potential targeting during boost/whatever we’re replacing THAAD with, might be able to handle anyways. Not to mention that any ICBM launch or nuclear device detonation in the U.S. is going to result in absolutely massive retaliation.

                The Danish space rocket story is really cool. Weren’t they planning on launching a person in it?

                1. ” The NORKs could hit SOCAL today.”

                  Still waitin on that citation John…

                  And I’m fat.

                  1. Checked Wikipedia. No claim there that NK has any nukes that can even be mounted on an ICBM, nor any missiles that could reliably reach Hawaii, much less the Mainland:

                    Delivery Systems

                    There is no evidence that North Korea has been able to miniaturize a nuclear warhead for use on a ballistic missile.
                    [edit] Successfully tested

                    KN-1 ? a short-range anti-ship cruise missile. Its range is estimated to be around 160 kilometers, and is most probably an improved version of the Soviet Termit missile (NATO codename “Styx”).
                    KN-2 Toksa ? a short-range, solid-fueled, highly accurate mobile missile, modified copy of the Soviet OTR-21. Unknown number in service, apparently deployed either in the late 1990s or early 2000s (decade).
                    Hwasong-5 ? initial Scud modification. Road-mobile, liquid-fueled missile, with an estimated range of 330 km. It has been tested successfully. It is believed that North Korea has deployed some 150?200 such missiles on mobile launchers.
                    Hwasong-6 ? later Scud modification. Similar to the Hwasong-5, yet with an increased range (550?700 km) and a smaller warhead (600?750 kg). Apparently this is the most widely deployed North Korean missile, with at least 400 missiles in use.
                    Nodong-1 ? larger and more advanced Scud modification. Liquid-fueled, road-mobile missile with a 650 kg warhead. First production variants had inertial guidance, later variants featured GPS guidance, which improves CEP accuracy to 190?250 m.[53] Range is estimated to be between 1,300 and 1,600 km.
                    Nodong-2 ? further improved variant of the Nodong-1, successfully tested in 2006. Range is estimated at about 2,000 km.
                    Taepodong-1 ? two-stage Scud-derived missile. Has been tested with a satellite payload in 1998. The satellite failed, but the missile apparently flew without significant problems, therefore it is North Korea’s longest-ranged operational missile with its 2,500 km maximum range. According to some analysts, the Taepodong-1 could have an intercontinental range of nearly 6,000 km with a third stage and a payload of less than 100 kg.[54][55]
                    Musudan-1 ? a modified copy of the Soviet R-27 Zyb SLBM.It was tested successfully as the first or second stage of Unha. Despite the failure of the satellite the first and second stages of the missle apparently flew without problems. The missile, also known under the names Nodong-B, Taepodong-X and BM25, has a range of 4,000 kilometers.

                    [edit] Not tested / failed tests

                    Taepodong-2 ? North Korea’s domestic ICBM attempt. First test occurred in 2006, when the missile failed 40 seconds after launch. On April 5, 2009, a space booster variant was launched with a satellite on board. As with in 1998, the satellite itself failed to reach orbit, but the missile flew several thousand kilometers before falling in the Pacific Ocean. Estimates of the range vary widely ? from 4,500 to 10,000 kilometers (most estimates put the range at about 6,700 km).

                2. “The Danish space rocket story is really cool. Weren’t they planning on launching a person in it?”

                  Yep. I think they had a successful escape tower burn and a successful 2nd stage burn just before the new year.

        3. Remember when the Taliban fired a bunsh of ballistic missiles into Ohio?

          Boy that was scary.

      4. half the time it took our current juggernaut of an army to “win” in Iraq.

        The actual warfighting (soveriegn on sovereign) took, what, less than a year?

        The problems come when you take a battle-exe superbly crafted for warfighting, and use it to try and build schools and whatnot. Its the wrong tool for the job.

        Plus, of course, the rules of engagement that the army was saddled with while it was not-fighting the not-war against the insurgency.

        Back in ye olde days (of, say, WWII), we would have just gone ahead and said yup, Iran is at war with us and needs some conquering, and rolled over the Iranian mullahs as well. Nothing would have helped Iraq more.

        But, in the new era of limited war and occupation/reconstruction, what the founders would have called “foreign entanglements”, we find ourselves bogged down and bleeding.

        1. “The problems come when you take a battle-exe superbly crafted for warfighting, and use it to try and build schools and whatnot.”

          That’s what private contractors are for!

          1. All I can remember is something about cups of tea…

        2. Honestly, this is why I hate the US’s foreign policy.

          We’re trying to half ass an empire. And it won’t work. You want to invade countries and take them over? Fine, cool, been being done for all of human history.

          But then you have to exploit there resources to, y’know, get something out of the arrangement. Also, you do offer a better life- be it aquaducts or the reopening of the Silk Road or whatever the fuck we offer. But then you also kill anyone who doesn’t get with the program- and you do so brutally.

          Also, you take a page from General Napier is you plan to change a backasswards culture: “You say it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: That when a man burns a woman alive, we wrap a rope around his neck and hang him. So erect your pyre. Next to it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You will enact your custom, and then we shall enact ours.”

      5. I can’t compare it to Afghanistan since we still haven’t fucking won there.

        Who the fuck ever has?

      6. Won what? I have no idea what we’re supposed to “win” in Afghanistan. A confusion I’m pretty sure I share with both Obama and his predecessor.

    4. 1930s isolationism also involved tariffs, which RP opposes.

      1. sorry, that does not fit the hater narrative.

    5. And Hitler was right…errr…yeah, sig heil!

    6. This is pretty much what used to be called isolationism, and it allowed Hitler to presume, quite correctly as it turned out, that America would not interfere with his plans to conquer Europe, Britain included.

      Yeah, It was also US isolationism that allowed the thirty years war to happen, and in that case since no one declared war on the US and we did not get involved it lasted, like forty years or something instead of 4.

      WTF is wrong with these warmongering dumbfucks.

    7. If America doesn’t waste a trillion a year of her precious resources on military contracts and international appeasement, uhm, Hitler!

    8. Seriously? The Washington Post is godwinning Hitler?

      What a piece of shit.

  4. The DEA will continue to interrupt the supply of ADHD drugs.

    Meh. No one will pay attention to this.

    1. Only if they wave shiny things at us while… ooh, shiny.

  5. Tongue-Depressor Tax Will Harm Jobs, Innovation: Ramesh Ponnuru
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…..nnuru.html

    A year from now, the federal government will start collecting a new tax on medical devices from tongue depressors to imaging machines, thanks to the sweeping health-care overhaul that Democrats enacted in the spring of 2010. People in the industry say it’s already having an effect.

    In November, citing the new tax, Stryker Corp. (SYK), whose products include artificial hips and knees, announced that it would let go about 1,000 of its workers. Earlier last year, Covidien Plc (COV), maker of surgical instruments, said it would lay off 200 workers in the U.S. and move production to Costa Rica and Mexico. It, too, cited the tax.

    1. What they say, and why they are moving is based on public relations, and not corporeality

      1. Sorry, I couldn’t understand this:

        Earlier last year, Covidien Plc (COV), maker of surgical instruments, said it would lay off 200 workers in the U.S. and move production to Costa Rica and Mexico. It, too, cited the tax

        1. They’re just scapegoating Obama. Obviously they’d close shop and move anyway and were probably planning to for at least a decade. Taxes never have any negative effects at all, saying otherwise is just libertard fiction.

    2. “the federal government will start collecting a new tax on medical devices”

      Well, that should help reduce the cost of healthcare.

      1. Exactly. How can someone even justify this? “In order to curb the rise of healthcare costs, we’re going to raise taxes on healthcare suppliers.” It takes some crafty mental gymnastics to believe accept that rationale.

        1. Or a Harvard education.

  6. Retail gift returns are up 8 percent this year.

    My wife and I returned almost $200 worth of gifts after Christmas this year. Some were duplicates, but mostly it was frivolous nonsense that got taken back.

    1. Yep. We returned a few things. The reasons ranged from “too large to take back on a plane” to “product from an informercial”.

      1. “product from an informercial”

        You didn’t return Eggies, did you? ‘Cause Eggies are awesome.

        1. I’m not even sure what that is, or even (based on the source) if I can safely google it.

          But, no, it was some thing that promised to teach our 15 month old to read.

          1. I guess you just want to have an illiterate baby, then.

            1. It drastically reduces the chance that she will become obsessed with terrible teen literature or Jane Austen.

              1. Whatever it takes to stop the Twilight craze… no matter the cost!

            2. I’m no developmental psychologist, but I’m pretty sure all babies are illiterate.

              1. I’m no humor expert, but I’m pretty sure that was the joke, Robo.

                1. “I’m no humor expert”

                  Indeed.

                  1. “I’m no humor expert”

                    Indeed.

                    At least I’m upfront about it.

              2. Illiterate or just lazy? I thought myself to read in the womb. I used menstrual Morse code to tell Mom to sit on books.

                1. Too bad you didn’t teach yourself to read.

                2. But nothing–NOTHING!–taught me to type.

        2. I had a porterhouse steak and eggs brunch yesterday. Didn’t need no fancy TV gadget.

      2. So, the Forever Lazy sex was too close to furries, wasn’t it?

        1. The fact that those things have a zippered back door for snowy-doggy-style action, is awesome.

          1. I’m still waiting for the first Forever Lazy porn.

    2. Why the fuck can’t in-laws simply ask you what you want? Surprise, I got you something you will almost surely not care for!

      1. To be fair, the mother-in-law gift for me was one of the duplicates. I got two sets of wrenches.

        Overall, things were better than usual, because I made a big effort to let everyone know about my Amazon wish list. That thing is awesome if you put a ton of different things on it so people have options. The in-laws aren’t comfortable with buying Skyrim, but they’ll supply me with tools and lawn care equipment.

      2. But I thought John’s parents didn’t even like you.

        1. Bwahahaha

  7. Obama Enters the Twilight Zone
    http://www.commentarymagazine……-congress/

    We are now reaching the point in which the president is running a truly post-modern campaign, in which there is no objective truth but simply narrative. Obama’s campaign isn’t simply distorting the facts; it is inverting them. This kind of thing isn’t unusual to find in the academy. But to see a president and his campaign so thoroughly deconstruct truth in order to maintain power is quite rare. The sheer audacity of Obama’s cynicism is a wonder of the modern world.

    1. I really wonder what Obama ads are going to look like. My guess is they will all be variations of “Republicans are icky!”

      1. *Shot of a stoic looking Obama*

        cut to

        *Shot of a KKK rally*

        print. that’s a wrap.

        1. Announcer: “Ron Paul wants people with AIDS to hurry up and die.”

          *blurry 1/4 second shot of Paul newsletters*

          Announcer: “Barack Obama has increased federal funding for finding a cure for AIDS by 300 billion dollars.”

          *shot of President Obama, getting a blood transfusion*

          Announcer: Vote Ron Paul if you hate people with AIDS, which we here at the Barack Obama campaign don’t. Are you with us?

          Paid for the People who Don’t Hate People with AIDS.

    2. He’s working hard to surpass Nixon as the worst president in the last fifty years.

      1. when we all find out that the Solyndra bullshit was part of Obama’s scheme to get a Shiny New Metal Body.

        1. I’ve been watching the third season of Fringe, so that sounds plausible to me.

          1. Six seasons and a movie!

          2. Love fringe, watched since the beginning. Love how Walters always making his own recreational drugs in the lab.

            1. Or is that Breaking Bad?

              1. Couldn’t get into that. I think because I couldn’t find a character that I liked even a little bit.

                1. That’s how I felt about Six Feet Under. Well done show, but I disliked just about every character.

                  1. I tried both Breaking Bad and Six Feet Under for a few episodes. Way too depressing for me.

                    And way too few universes.

      2. What was I? Chopped liver?

        And ain’t I the dope that keeps on giving?

        1. Funny how nobody remembers me.

          1. Yeah I still give you the #1 spot over Nixon.

            1. Thanks.
              Have you seen my scar?

          2. LBJ|1.3.12 @ 9:59AM|#

            Funny how nobody remembers me.

            I do occasionally chuckle at how you’re burning in hell, but that’s it.

      3. At least Nixon’s problem was that he was a crook. He was never outright incompetent, though his economic literacy was on a par with BO’s.

        Obama makes Jimmy Carter seem competent in retrospect. 🙂

      4. He’s working hard to surpass Nixon as the worst president in the last fifty years.

        He succeeded two years ago.

        The public is now so cynical (thanks President Blowjob!) that, if Watergate were to happen today, not an eye would be batted.

    3. Let me be obfuscative.

    4. But to really enter the Twilight Zone, consider these two priceless sentences from the Times story: “Winning a full-year extension of the payroll tax, Mr. Earnest said, will still be a top priority. He noted that House Republicans were now also arguing that it should be extended for a year, after some initially opposed extending it at all.”

      Come again? On December 13, the GOP House passed a full-year extension of the payroll tax cut ? and was promptly criticized by ? you guessed it ? the president. Obama favored a much shorter, two-month extension. House Republicans, under intense political pressure, eventually agreed to the two-month extension. Now the White House is declaring a full-year extension is a “top priority.” Yet as recently as three weeks ago the opposition to the president’s “top priority” came not from House Republicans but from Obama himself.

      Am I missing something, or is that really as embarrassing as it seems?

      1. This has to be a lie. MNG makes more money than I do.

      2. These kinds of politicians have no shame. They haven’t the capability to be embarrassed.

        It’s all part of the plan.

  8. The Rise of Consumption Equality
    Getting rich requires serving a mass market, which means the rest of us can buy what the rich buy.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/…..on_LEADTop

    Spot the pattern here? Just about every product or service that makes our lives better requires a mass market or it’s not economic to bother offering. Those who invent and produce for the mass market get rich. And the more these innovators better the rest of our lives, the richer they get but the less they can differentiate themselves from the masses whose wants they serve. It’s the Pages and Bransons and Zuckerbergs who have made the unequal equal: So, sure, income equality may widen, but consumption equality will become more the norm.

    1. Maybe so but with the web people have been much more successful catering to niche markets. In fact, it’s probably easier to purchase those type of items than ever before. True, may not get multi-national corporation rich but you can do fairly well with a smaller loyal niche based group of consumers.

  9. Paul locks in the teeny-bopper vote:

    Kelly Clarkson endorses Ron Paul

    1. I wouldn’t call her “teeny” in any sense of the word. I move that we call it the “younger vote.” Or the plumper-bopper.

      1. the plumper-bopper

        You rang?

    2. Current teeny-boppers dont remember the first season of AI.

      Neither do I, but for a different reason.

        1. American Idol, maybe? It’s all my acronym-decryptor can come up with.

          1. Kelly Clarkson won the first season of American Idol.

            I thought in context it would be obvious.

            1. Sorry, never seen it, or heard Kelly Clarkson.

            2. I’d like to forget A.I.

              1. What an awful film.

            3. I don’t think I’ve seen more than a few minutes of American Idol. From what little I’ve seen, all the women look like Mariah Carey-wannabes, inflicting us with as much melisma as possible.

              The men, at least, were slightly more diverse, ranging from Luther Vandross wannabees to Michael Buble (retch, retch) wannabes.

          2. Artificial Insemination?

            Featuring rejects from American Idol?

            1. That probably would have been a better name for the show.

  10. The liberal paper of record wonders if America is “prepared for a grinding, lengthy ground war in Asia.”

    Conceivable.

    1. The US hasn’t had this ability for decades, it was barely able to sustain two occupations and that required stripping units around the world. But this does not stop the US politicians from going around the world and handing out defense agreements to more and more countries.

      Its all based on bluff and as we have seen so many times, bluff only works until someone calls you on it.

      1. Well, as noted before in reference to WWII, our ability to ramp up our military is much, much greater than any other country’s. So it’s not entirely bluff.

        Not that I agree with projecting force everywhere or threatening to use it before exhausting other options, but we’re a much greater military power than our current operations seem to indicate.

        1. It is no longer WW2 and much of this type of production has long ago been sold off. Where are the steel mills, the shipyards, the aircraft factories? What is left is now all ‘right sized” so they don’t have the capacity to increase production. If you look at todays US weapons systems they have trouble even meeting peacetime production rates. Lots of equipment can’t even be produced without tools and parts from other countries who may or may not supply them.

          1. We can borrow money from China and have them build our tanks and rockets. duh!

          2. Not to mention that we’ve been operating in the Middle East for over 20 years now, and a lot of the hardware that we thought would have been replaced by next-gen stuff by now is not only still being operated, it’s in its third or fourth maintenance phase by now. Just look at the Air Force–they can’t get their V-22s and F-22s into the field on a scale necessary to phase out some of the older aircraft, the entire C-130 fleet has had to get their center-wing boxes replaced, the F-35 is still in testing and development hell, and with the CSAR-X getting cancelled, they’re now moving on to recapitalizing the H-60s instead.

            On top of this, the new hardware is complicated as hell to maintain, and the issue of spare parts that you brought up is one the military really hasn’t confronted. This is one of those issues that could really cripple the American military, because if you don’t have the parts, those vehicles aren’t going anywhere. It’s the inevitable consequence of the military’s tech-geek fetish that they’re always looking for the coolest gadget to drool over, rather than have a foundation of simple, cheap, durable hardware on hand in case the logistics pipeline gets crippled.

            1. Buying “simple, cheap, durable hardware” does not get someone in the Administration, Congress or Pentagon a job with a defense contractor. Nor does it look good on the power point briefing when they are working in the Administration, Congress or Pentagon.
              And it has no career downside to order fancy over complicated and expensive equipment since the person who makes the decision is not around ten or more years later when the program is a failure, they have already been promoted upward to where they can make other bad decisions.

              1. Tell that to the fuckers who insist on keeping the M-16/M4 platform rather than switching to a more reliable weapon system that shoots something of real consequence.

            2. that was (is) pretty much the Russkie hardware – cheap, reliable, simple. Perfect for guerrilla warfare.

          3. We haven’t jettisoned our industrial capacity to quite that extent. Where we’ve done that has been primarily in consumer goods, not commercial.

      2. That is not true. An occupation is much more difficult than an actual war. Force on force conventional wars will not last that long in the 21st Century. The weapons are too deadly. The days of huge industrial age armies throwing hundreds of thousands of troops at each other are over. Precision munitions ended that. Ground wars in the 21st century will be fought by small, professional and amazingly deadly army. Our Army is still by far the best in the world at that. But that skill doesn’t translate to the entirely different problem of fighting a guerrilla war and conducting an occupation.

        1. We’re going to all robots, all of the time, anyway. That way, it’s not our fault when civilians get killed. It’s Microsoft’s.

          1. “Why do they keep bombing Apple plants in China?”

            1. “I told you our brand recognition was sub-par.”

          2. I hope we can use those robots to fight any coming alien invasion.

          3. I prefer that all robotics work be done for the sex toy industry. They can work on soldiers after that.

            1. After reading Charlie Stross’s Rule 34, I can only say… eewww.

              1. Never heard of it.

            2. I’d rather be shot by a robotic drone, than get killed by snu-snu from one of your proposed terminator robots.

        2. The US in the last 10 years have converted large parts of the conventional army into occupation troops. Artillery, tank, air defense units have been turned into infantry or military police. Spending on conventional training has been cut back greatly to pay for occupation training. Conventional war equipment has been cut to pay for equipment needed for occupation. The US military is not what it was, it could not even do a Gulf War I again without massive spending increases to a pay for new equipment and training.

          1. This is a problem why?

          2. That is a myth. It is much more deadly now than it was in Gulf War I. Gulf War I precision munitions were still in their infancy. And there was no real computer integration of the battlefield. We don’t have as many tanks and artillery because we don’t need as many. The difference in lethality is enormous. We have a third generation Army. Gulf War I was still on the border between an industrial army and a 21st century one.

            1. And how many of these precision weapons have been made? Not a lot. What the production rate, not a lot, what is the cost, a lot per weapon. For example US Navy ships go on six month deployments without their magazines filled because there are not enough to go around. As soon as they return to the US the missiles are taken off so they can be put on other ships.

              1. There is also the “wisdom” of using a $1 million dollar missile to blow up a fifty year old soviet made tank that’s worth about $50,000.

            2. John, you’re too big for this site. You need your own site, a place you can spread out, a place you call your own. Stop hiding your light under a bushel! H&R is Small Town. You’re Big City, Baybee! Call me.

        3. Force on force conventional wars will not last that long in the 21st Century. The weapons are too deadly. The days of huge industrial age armies throwing hundreds of thousands of troops at each other are over.

          That sounds a lot like what people were saying in the 1920s.

          Wasn’t true then, isn’t true now.

      3. It’s a good thing the battleship is obselete. The US no longer has any industrial facility that can manufacture gun barrels for them.

        Mind you, I suppose if the battleship weren’t obselete we’d still have industrial plant to support them.

        1. First used in 1941(?), last used in 1991. It was a good run. Although, why we wouldn’t want a mobile platform able to throw (relatively) cheap ordinance over the horizon with an accuracy that can be measured in tens of feet seems short-sighted. I’m sure they’re expensive to run, but we’ve got the bugs worked out of them.

          1. Actually the term “battleship” dates to the 1700s but what is generally meant by it is a steel hulled steam driven ship with heavy guns in rotating turrets.

            The first of these were built in the 1880s snd 90s.

            The North Carolina class battleships date to 1941, the South Dakota class to 1942 and the Iowa class to 1943. Only the Iowa class was in service past the 1950s.

            Some naval authorities think they were obselete even then. Obviously others disagreed. (when my dad and a bunch of other old WWII geezers got together for their Canoe U 50th clas reunion in 1986 one of the topics of conversation was recommisioning batleships, a policy almost universally derided by the old salts)

            Not everyone agrees that they’re obselete even today. I’ve heard the Marine Corps has raised questions about getting one of the Iowa class back in service, or getting a new one built. The Marines really love that huge artillery platform apparently.

            Of the four Iowa class ships at least one (maybe two??) have been given to the cities on condition that they be return if the Navy requests them. Also any useful parts left on them (turrets, barbettes and the guns themselves remain the property of the Navy – pretty much all othe useful parts – especially classified ones – have presumably been removed already.

            Also, the Navy has also kept a stockpile of the spare Iowa class guns and the smaller guns that were in previous battleships. They just don’t make them anymore and you never know when you might need some big guns.

            1. The three classes of ships I mentioned above were all part of a crash shipbuilding program to rebuild the Navy after the (I think many agree) disasterous Naval Treaty of the 20s that led to the scrapping or cancellation of almost a couple od whole classes of battleships and heavy cruisers.

              The rebuilding of the Navy by FDR after it was gutted by Herbert Hoover is one of the reason why FDR was so popular with sailors, officers and enlisted alike.

    2. The liberal paper of record wonders if America is “prepared for a grinding, lengthy ground war in Asia.”

      So long as there’s a Democrat in the White House.

  11. Why Black Market Entrepreneurs Matter to the World Economy
    http://www.wired.com/magazine/…..h_qa/all/1

    Wired: Are there things that the US should be doing to take better advantage of the realities of System D in the developing world?

    Neuwirth: Absolutely. For starters, if we really want to engage in true, ground-level economic development in these countries, then we have to begin looking at these markets. These are the places where the bulk of people are being employed. And we have to listen for these markets to tell us what’s needed in a community. It’s not a bureaucrat in Washington or Nigeria who can best establish what’s needed to help the poor in Lagos. It’s the people who are working in these markets and living on the streets who can tell us that. And maybe more US companies can begin acting like Chinese firms, recognizing that there’s a market there and a niche to be filled. In the future, it’s going to be a very lucrative and important niche indeed.

  12. I never even thought about it liek that that before dude. Wow.

    http://www.Privacy-Stuff.tk

  13. It, too, cited the tax.

    This is why we MUST nationalize healthcare. Just think of all the wonderful medical innovations we’ll have once we get those self-serving profit-mad capitalist bastards out of the way.

    1. Thanks to capitalism, it’s nearly impossible for me to profit off of my altruism.

    2. Once it is nationalized, they can then implement the five year plan. Nothing helps innovation more then ridged plans implemented by bureaucrats

      1. ridged plans implemented by bureaucrats

        I think I saw some of those for sale in a gas station bathroom, but I don’t think they called them “plans.”

  14. The liberal paper of record wonders if America is “prepared for a grinding, lengthy ground war in Asia.”

    Only if it has elephants.

    1. Drone elephants would rock.

      1. Didn’t work too well for The Galactic Empire on Hoth.

        1. The EMpire won on Hoth.

          1. Otherwise the title would’ve been : “The Empire Strikes Out”.

              1. The Loss of the Death Star was attributed to “work place violence”, didn’t you get the memo?

          2. Only when they brought in ground troops.

            1. As Darth Vader said at the time; “You go to Hoth with the army you have, not the army you… wait I don’t have to answer that, I can just Force choke you.”

          3. I did a google search of “at-at blown up,” and on Page 1 is a pic of LiLo looking stoned, Schneider from “One Day At A Time,” a gingerbread At-At and a classroom full of muslim girls.

            I believe this is partially why the Iranians hate us so much.

            1. The Iranians hate us because we invaded their Mexico. Or is it Canada?

            2. If those AT-ATs had burned gasoline instead of using rechargeable batteries they could have galloped into the Rebel Base in ten seconds.

            3. Enough of your joking Sloopy. This is a time of mourning, don’t you know? Our beloved Buckeyes went out with a whimper, not to return to bowl eligibility until 2013. Dark days ahead.

              1. Want to vomit? 6 of their 7 losses were by 7 points or less.

                And it’s all sunshine ahead. They lost many of those games because Fickell is a terrible coach that did not instill confidence in his players. Tressel never would have lost a lot of those games. And Urban Meyer, PBUH, will not lose them either.

                1. We got Urban Meyer. 🙂 But the bowl eligibility issue still sucks. Wish the NCAA had handed that one down during the season, before we accepted the Gator Bowl bid. Personally, I think the NCAA did that on purpose, to kind of juice the penalty.

                  1. Umm. You guys know that Muschamp’s 6-6 team is full of Urban’s players, right? He’s a poor recruiter. But best of luck with your new coach. Personally, I wish he’d stayed at UF so that FSU could beat him like a drum until he got Zook’d.

                2. I’m wondering why Florida’s players gave their coach a Gatorade shower. They beat a 6-6 team as a fellow 6-6 team. Wowzers!

                  1. Hoooorayyy for mediocrity! We’re slightly ahead!!

      2. Drone elephants would rock.

        Also a good name for a rock band.

    2. Laugh while you can, MonkeyBoy

  15. A lot of that has to do with how much better web sites have gotten, including the ability to rotate the image of a product 360 degrees.

    When they can email me my new waffle maker, then websites will have something to brag about. Finally put those UPS bastards and their brown shorts out of business.

    1. Get ready everyone, he’s got a John Kerry joke up his sleeve for when you reply with some sort of snark.

      1. Or since, unlike in BT’s world, it’s 2012, I can tee up a Romney or Gingrich waffling joke.

    2. You only say that because you hate unions. Typical libertarian.

      1. My dear man, why NOT hate unions?

    3. You know who else wore brown shirts and only went to certain doors?

      1. Girl Scouts?

      2. A young George Soros?

      3. UPS.

        1. I win, because you, Rich, lacked courage.

            1. You still do. “I did not, hoser!”, would’ve been a stronger response.

        2. Wait, UPS is mentioned in the original post. Who else wore brown shirts?

          1. UPS wore brown shorts and brown shirts.

          2. You’re unaware of the historical ties between Nazism and UPS?

            1. All their trucks are made by Mercedes-Benz?

              1. Designed by Porsche. The Volkslieferwagen

                1. Only a Nazi could have designed something as evil as the Cayenne.

                  1. True story: Albert Speer was my great-grandfather’s second cousin. He changed the name when he came over in the 20’s.

                    1. Thus proving that all libertarians are Nazis. QED. Ipso facto.

      4. Mel from Firefly?

        1. FAIL!!

          It’s Mal, not Mel.

          And you needn’t EVER, at least not in this crowd, delineate where Mal is from. Not knowing that means your card is rescinded indefinitely.

  16. Retail gift returns are up 8 percent this year.

    I’ll do you one better: I save the gifts I want to return and give them as gifts the next year. Voila. No trips to the mall, no shipping back stuff.

    1. But nobody wants that Label Baby, Jr.

      1. Fun Fact: production on the Label Baby, Jr. ended in 1998.

        1. No wonder I got all those Label Baby, Jr.s, for Christmas 1999.

        2. In 2073 it will show up on an episode of American Pickers.

  17. It’s not a bureaucrat in Washington or Nigeria who can best establish what’s needed to help the poor in Lagos.

    Whaaaaaaaaaa…?

    1. Fucking blasphemy, ain’t it?

  18. This just in!

    Jessica Alba is still totally fuckalicious!

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

    1. Butt shot on the dude, but not on Alba. Only the English.

    2. Sarah’s prettier.

      1. Though I add this. Saw Flesh+Blood last night and Jennifer Jason Leigh looks great in her many, many full-frontal scenes.

        1. Jennifer Jason Leigh – the 80s goddess.

          Check out ‘Eyes of a Stranger’ – kind of a poor man’s Hitchcock movie. Leigh plays a deaf/blind/mute girl. Some minor nudity from her.

  19. 100% OT:

    I previously mentioned my sci-fi novella. For H&R readers, I made a coupon for a free copy.

    Malediction:
    http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/116700

    Coupon Code: QG98W

    Note: I’m not a big fan of the Smashwords layout/ordering process, but they’re the only place that allows coupon generation.

    If you just want to sample the book via Kindle:
    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B006P08Q7I/reasonmagazinea-20/

    and now back to your regularly scheduled Iowa gnashing.

    1. Insightful comment on that article:

      obama 2012 on Jan 3, 9:21 AM said:
      ha look at this white man what a joke n loser ole bastard he aint got a chance genst main man obama and yall just lookin to keep holdin us 99% down but guess what not happenin time to get ours.

      sorry 1% you get taxed and we finaallly get to get some hurts donut?

      The wonders of public education.

      1. hurts donut

        Is that the one with the pieces of broken glass baked in and glazed with syrup of Ipecac?

        1. The Hurts Donut, available anywhere hemorrhoid medication is sold.

          1. Hurts Donut is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Uranus-Hertz Corporation.

            1. Might have to change my handle, because that is fucken awesome.

      2. Sounds like O2, only less coherent.

        1. I disagree, this sounds more coherent than O2.

    2. “Whereas the entire race up to Iowa was looking for a non-Romney candidate, the race turns into a search for the non-Paul candidate.”

      I can see that happening as they are doing that already. The entire GOP primary is basically RP vs. a bunch of interchangeable asshats.

      1. RP vs. Romneybot vs. Interchangeable asshats. Credit where credit is due, Romney only wants to seem enough like an asshat to get to the general election in order take the exact view that a plurality of voters have on every single issue while denying charges of flip-flopping.

        The 2012 election: It doesn’t matter who wins because we’re all losers.

    1. Those dumbshits. Their pic for Denver shows bottles of Coors Non-Alcoholic.

      TDB could fuck up a wet dream.

      1. And Cbus doesn’t even make the list. Fuck. Guess I gotta redouble my efforts in 2012.

        1. i clicked through the whole thing looking for cbus as well. what a disappointment.

    2. DC didn’t make the list? I guess congresscritters get tallied in their home district then?

      1. They were #3 before the Kennedy clan vacated their offices to either attend rehab or go to Hell.

        1. Hell is also noticeably absent from the list…

          1. That’s because all they serve is O’Douls down there.

            1. *inconsolable wailing*

    3. Philadelphia: Deaths per 100,000 residents from alcoholic liver disease : 0.6

      That’s the most impressive thing in the whole spread, nowhere else was under 3. Something in the Delaware is giving Philadelphians unnaturally strong livers; I’m just going to baselessly attribute it to fracking runoff.

      1. or they’re just dying from something else, like living in Philly, before the alcohol can do them in.

        1. Or hijinks.
          Based on my research, a lot of zany hijinks go on in Philadelphia.

          1. but nobody ever dies from those hijinks.

            well, nobody important.

            1. Hehe. Hijinks. Funny word. Three dotted letters in a row.

              Eddie: Is it hyphenated?

              Chief Wiggum: It used to be. Back in the bad old days. Of course every generation hyphenates the way it wants to. Then there’s N’Sync. Heh. What the hell is that. Jump in any time, Eddie, these are good topics.

    4. #1 is right. However, it should have been followed by 9 other Wisconsin cities.

    5. I’m amazed Albuquerque didn’t make that list, considering how many DWI arrests there are.

      1. Well, it would just be racist to include the Pueblo and Navajo populations down here.

    6. Sweet! 28 with a bullet!

  20. 2012 Prediction: Our chatter will Make A Difference!

    1. You cheek and you tounge
      A go let you down
      And a when them let you down
      We a go batter you around
      Biff, baff, boof, those are the blows you’re gonna get
      Mr. Talkative, I know you will regret

  21. When one of the most beautiful women in the world is married to a dude that’s clearly no better looking than I am, I really have to question where I went wrong. I will also be really surprised if “Haven” and “Honor” don’t end up on a stage dancing for dollars someday. Disappointed too if they end up looking anything like their mother.

    1. erm, meant for the Jessica Alba post

      1. Wrong thread and wrong site!

        Winner!

  22. You don’t matter at all! No one cares what you think! And I need to tell you this over and over again on every thread. Becuase you don’t matter! PAY ATTENTION TO ME, PEOPLE WHO DO NOT MATTER!

    1. Why not use your real fake name?

      1. Boo-hoo-hoo.

        1. Tell me again why you don’t care.

  23. I don’t know who Loren Stoner is, but … damn!

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

    1. tells me I should say she needs to eat a sandwich.

    2. Butter face and no boobs.

      1. Are you saying you’d kick her out of bed?

        1. No. But she isn’t all of that.

          1. Is this more to your liking?

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

            1. I am sure you like. Skinny, small boobs, boyish looking. He is right up your alley.

              1. I figured you’d like that one since his moobs are bigger than her boobs.

            2. I don’t know who Maria Menounos is but great mother of God. Take her over any of the women you put up here.

              http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..-days.html

              1. I put her up last week.

                1. But she has an ass and boobs and looks like a woman. She is way too fat for you.

                  1. Not much of an ass or tits. Needs to eat more. Nice face, though.

              2. “Beach Buddies: ….”

                You can see a supernova forming in the background from all the hotness.

        2. No need to kick. You could just blow on her and watch her float away.

          1. I’d rather she do the blowing, but that’s just me.

    3. Get that woman a McRib…stat!

      1. Sarcasmic is still hot.

    4. She’s just about perfect, well done. Don’t let the Chubby Chasers get you down, sarcasmic.

      1. Don’t worry. I consider my work to be a public service, and if John don’t like it he can suck Stephen Tyler’s dick.

  24. Completely OT:

    I mentioned my sci-fi novella. For a short time, I’m giving it away for free.
    http://ofghostsandgunpowder.bl…..e-via.html

    It can be sampled here for Kindle:
    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B006P08Q7I/reasonmagazinea-20/

  25. Completely OT:

    I mentioned my sci-fi novella. For a short time, I’m giving it away for free.
    http://ofghostsandgunpowder.bl…..e-via.html

    1. Hey, could you repost this again in the PM Links? I’m serious, I wish to take advantage of your free giveaway, but cannot from work and will forget when I get home.

      1. I’ll try to remember though I’m usually wrapped up with family life by then.

      2. I email myself links that are work-banned.

        Just a thought.

        1. Dammit, man. Next you’ll want me to pay my own debts and have one of those “job” things. I refuse to be responsible for my own wants and needs!

      3. Instapaper
        Dot Com

      4. Hey Brett, why not just jot down http://ofghostsandgunpowder.bl…..e-via.html on a sheet of scrap paper? That should work.

        1. Paper? Paper doesn’t stick with me. My pockets are vortecies of paper a la the hole under the seat in Wristcutters. Any paper put in my pocket will disappear by the end of the day. Greenbacks included.

          1. Still a place in this world for inscribed stone tablets.

          2. You put it in your wallet next to your cash. You will eventually find it.

    2. Voganize the tyrnical kilnbrator?

    3. For a short time, I’m giving it away for free.

      I predict that soon you will be giving it away for free, forever.

      Don’t ask me how I know.

        1. I am cruelty.

  26. the president is running a truly post-modern campaign, in which there is no objective truth but simply narrative.

    OBEY

    1. STOP RESISTING. YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED.

      1. Why were there no mulatto Borg?

        For that matter, if they went around the universe assimilating civilizations, why were all of the ones shown humanoid? Nary a Borg that was once another species, unless you count Frogs with Limey accents as another species.

        1. There were a few non-Caucasian Borg, but the borgenating process made everyone pasty grey.

          As for the other: SFX budgets…

        2. It’d be hard to keep an octupi in one of those Borg drone stations?

          1. I’d like to see how a Ferengi would react to the Borgification process.

        3. An ex-Borg’s dissatisfaction with group sex clubs gave us our President today.

  27. Ron Paul from Iowa last night: “We, the people, are growing and I’m optimistic.”

    This just in: Mad libertarian doctor looks forward to genetically modified race of giants.

    1. NYT: Ron Paul endorses obesity epidemic, optimistic that America will get fatter

    2. “I *told* you he’s a racist!”

    3. WaPo OpEd: Paul Optimistic That His Growing, Racist Army Can Successfully Overthrow US Govt.

      1. MSNBC: We now have confirmation from several sources that Ron Paul plans to use fat racist giants to overthrow the US government and impose Jim Crow Fat Racist Giant-only water fountains all over the land.

        FOX: We now have confirmation from several sources that Ron Paul plans to use fat racist giants to overthrow the US government and to help Iran build a nuclear bomb that will kill us all.

        1. NY Post: PAUL TO AMERICA: GET READY TO TAKE IT, FAT BOY

          1. That’s really quite funny.

        2. CNN: Some blonde white girl has disappeared!

    4. You kid, but expect that headline if he wins.

  28. With a Christmas season that has seen record e-commerce sales coming to a close, returns should hit an all-time high on Tuesday for United Parcel Service (UPS.N).

    Wonder why UPS’ chart isn’t similar to Amazon’s.

  29. ICBMs? BAH!

    Submarines are the platform. We could shut down all our other air and surface forces and still have veto power over anything anybody else does, as long as our submarine fleet is lurking out there under the ice.

    Doomsday Machine FTW!

    1. We will inform all the other nations of this change in policy, right?

      1. “Yes, but the whole point of the doomsday machine is lost if you keep it a secret! Why didn’t you tell the world, eh?”

        1. It was a plot to get a look at the big board.

    2. Yeah we can use our subs to sink all those boatloads of crap the CHinese are sending over.

    1. Aldama, who paid a smuggler $1,300 to lead him through the mountains east of San Diego on a weeklong trek 13 years ago,

      I never understood this. Why don’t they just walk through a border checkpoint and tell them they are going shopping?

      1. Having no ID, money or possessions probably makes that harder.

        1. Though she did apparently have $1300, so never mind.

      2. You don’t get through unless you can prove you have lots of ties back to Mexico plus gobs of cash in bank accounts there that would motivate you to return.

        1. I don’t think that’s right. I’ve been through the crossing in San Diego, and I’ve seen plenty of Mexicans walking through the turnstiles after showing a driver’s license or other ID. It probably happens 1,000 times a day.

          1. What I find intersting is that in the film A Touch of Evil, made in 1958 that is set on the US/Mexico border, one of the main charcaters marvels that the US and Mexico share a 1,700 mile open border,

            As recently as 19-fucking-58.

      3. I’m going to guess because Mexico’s border isn’t like Canada’s and having a record of your entry instantly puts you on a list to be deported once they find you. If no one knows you’re here, they probably feel like they could more likely get away with it.

  30. Nuggets from Santorum:

    “This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone. That there is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.”

    http://www.cato-at-liberty.org…..overnment/

    1. At least he’s honest about his authoritarianism.

      1. Santorum is possibly the one person on the GOP field that would make me pull the lever for obama. Please dont make me do that.

        1. You can always pull the Johnson [lever].

    2. That there is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.

      Well, not counting the first 150 years of the United States, anyway.

      And, for that matter, the kind of radical individualism he is talking about was probably pretty much the norm in England for a very long time.

      So, he’s either (a) historically ignorant or (b) thinks the US and England up until the ’30s or so were failures as cultures.

      Or both, of course.

      1. Santorum is a paleo-Catholic, and the Catholic church pretty much regarded England as a failure from the 1500s on.

      2. RC,

        Before 1930, the US and England were universally Christian. They also had blue laws out the ass. And they had pretty strict social norms. Try living with your girlfriend in 1910s America or England. Try being openly gay. Yeah, there were radical individualists. And they tended to be writers and others on the fringes of society.

        In many ways those societies were freer than we are now. Much less control of their people’s economic lives. But, to call Edwardian England or Victorian America “radically individualist” is just not true.

        1. I think it comes down to whether you regard a country that is largely free of state intrusion, but has “strict social norms” as radically individualist.

          In our current context, trading the Total State for strict social norms would probably look pretty fucking radically individualist.

          1. But they had lots of state intrusion. It was illegal to be gay. It was illegal to live with someone out of wedlock. In England it was illegal to be a Catholic for several centuries.

            1. Compared to our situation, I don’t see any way they could have had “lots” of state intrusion. The state didn’t have the resources to intrude on anything like the scale of ours, for one thing. And it simply didn’t have the volumes and volumes (and volumes) of laws that ours has that give the state license to intrude anywhere, anytime, it wanted.

              1. Without the threat of force, strict social norms decay. Non-adherents don’t care about what you want them to care about if all you can do is give them dirty looks.

                1. “Without the threat of force, strict social norms decay.”

                  Maybe. But I think the point is that Santorum and his ilk haven’t in the past (as John details) and don’t now seem opposed to using force to maintain some of them. He would also be open to using carrots (targeted government “support” and benefits) to help “enforce” them.

              2. The state had lots of ways to intrude. Elizabethan England was a police state. And people were routinely prosecuted for those crimes in Victorian England. It was a stifling society. It was stifling in ways that you or I as a straight married male wouldn’t have minded.

                But I wouldn’t call it individualistic. It just wasn’t.

                1. John’s right. If you were gay (ask O. Wilde), or into buying, selling or producing pornography, or a woman or Catholic, etc., Victorian England was hardly a laissez-faire paradise (I expect their trade was not all that free either).

                  Often you will hear libertarians wax about the small government days of the 1950’s. But for a lot of people it would not have seemed that way. If you were gay, black, single, a woman, an atheist, etc., in 1950 United States the government intrusion would have been pretty palpable.

                  1. Now here is the tricky thing. For many people that were or are concerned about this government intrusion in the lives of blacks, women, atheists, etc., in the 1950’s they see the growing influence of the federal government as a curative. After all, it was the feds (both in terms of legislation, like the CRA and Voting Rights Act) who started to police the state Jim Crow laws; it was the feds (in legistlation and court decisions) that started to police state gender restrictions; it was the feds who struck down state establishment violations…So many of these people see libertarian and conservative attacks on “the growth of the federal government” think that kind of thing might be associated with all that negative state intrusion of the 50’s…

                    1. Then again, the libertarians were leading the charge against Jim Crow and government sponsored racial discrimination during the rise of the progressives.

                      The progressives want to keep the legal weaponry that permitted Jim Crow to allow them to “better” society through state violence.

                      Libertarians have been trying to beat them into plowshares for over a century.

                    2. “the libertarians were leading the charge against Jim Crow and government sponsored racial discrimination during the rise of the progressives”

                      Where in the world do you get that?

                      “The progressives want to keep the legal weaponry that permitted Jim Crow to allow them to “better” society through state violence.”

                      That’s silly. By that logic the people who want to keep guns available for citizens to use for defending themselves are in the same moral boat as those who want to keep them in the hands of criminals..

                    3. “the libertarians were leading the charge against Jim Crow and government sponsored racial discrimination during the rise of the progressives”

                      Where in the world do you get that?

                      Here’s a couple of good starting points:

                      Classical Liberalism and the Fight for Equal Rights

                      The Forgotten History of Libertarian Anti-Racism

                    4. That’s just cherry-picking a handful of people who seem to have held some classical liberal views (and a lot of this is questionable, Douglass for example was a big proponent of the Freedman’s Bureau which was one of the biggest expansions of federal government of its time) and happened to fight for civil rights…Pretty weak stuff.

                    5. Hey, as I said, they’re starting points. If you don’t want to explore those paths, I’m not going to lose any sleep about it.

                    6. There’s a reason why blacks became wary of conservatives and libertarians and sympathetic to progressives and even communists tarran. In the 1940′-1970’s the latter were marching with them, getting their heads split and such, while the latter were talking about the virtues of free association…

                    7. There’s a reason why blacks became wary of conservatives and libertarians and sympathetic to progressives and even communists tarran. In the 1940′-1970’s the latter were marching with them, getting their heads split and such, while the latter were talking about the virtues of free association…

                      Um, the latter being progressives, who have promoted eugenics, subjugation and separation of the races and abortion as a check on black population growth?

                      No, those were liberals. And somewhere along the way, progressives have mana

                    8. Oops.

                      Those were liberals, and somewhere along the way, progressives have co-opted the history of liberalism and written it, erroneously, into their own narrative.

                      And they should be called on it every time they bring up their “championing of civil rights” or any other bullshit they try to glom onto.

                    9. You only get this with a very simplistic view of history sloop. “Progressives” were a big tent. Rural and Southern “progressives” and urban, non-Southern split a looooong time ago. Think of the “progressives” who supported Henry Wallace (who got tomatoes thrown at him for embracing civil rights) in 48 vs. the “progressives” who supported Thurmond. For that matter compare Henry Wallace to William Jennings Bryant on religion, both were “progressive.” Today’s progressive movement shed Thurmond’s views on race and Bryant’s on religion a long time ago.

                      Things change. “Conservatives Republicans” used to be for high tariffs, now “Conservative Republicans” hate them.

                    10. That’s silly. By that logic the people who want to keep guns available for citizens to use for defending themselves are in the same moral boat as those who want to keep them in the hands of criminals..

                      Nope. Not at all. Because those legal tools are never defensive but always invasive.

                      A firearms has a defensive use: shooting someone trying to kill you, for example.

                      The a law that prohibits a person from engaging in business with another person based on the other person’s race, on the other hand, has no such defensive purpose.

                    11. That’s just sophistry and question begging. The gun and the government are tools. They both can be used in ways people think good (self defense/combatting workplace discrimination) or bad (murder/requiring workplace discrimination).

                    12. Are you seriously arguing that sometimes I could force another person to not hire someone based on the color of that someone’s skin, and it would be good?

                      Seriously?

                    13. So many of these people see libertarian and conservative attacks on “the growth of the federal government” think that kind of thing might be associated with all that negative state intrusion of the 50’s…

                      Yes, I understand that they think this way. It’s sloppy thinking and it deserves no respect beyond finding ways to convince its holders of the error of their ways.

                    14. Was it not federal courts and legislation that attacked a lot of that stuff?

                2. And people were routinely prosecuted for those crimes in Victorian England.

                  Bullshit.

                  Child prostitution was accepted in Victorian England.

              3. Please list instances of state intrusion you have personally experienced in the past year.

                Then we’ll compare it to the list of social intrusion that went on in the typical American’s life in 1900.

                I’m pretty sure I know which list is going to be longer.

                1. This is what I’m talking about. If you were a black guy in 1900 Alabama, or a gay guy in the same place or time, or a woman, then yeah they are going to experience waaaay more government intrusion then compare to today. And I’m not talking about having to work by OSHA laws.

                  This kind of thing is why blacks, women, etc., are skeptical of folks who hold sway on the glory of small government.

                2. Ooh, I’ll start.

                  The state intruded on me today when I took a shower and the lights went off halfway through because it’s the law that I have to have motion-sensor light switches in California.

                  They further intruded when the light bulb I installed had to be a CFL.

                  It went farther when I had to make sure my fireplace wasn’t burning anymore this morning, as it’s a no-burn day in my town.

                  Then I got in my car, and had to make sure my seatbelt was fastened, for fear of running afoul of the law.

                  And when my phone rang in the car, I had to fire up the bluetooth because it’s illegal to talk without one.

                  Then when I got to McDonalds, I had to eat hash browns cooked in Trans-fat free oil because the state makes them use it.

                  Shall I go on?

                  1. All that sucks, it does, and liberals are stupid and foolish to not see how grating it is daily.

                    But would you argue it was better for, say, a black guy in 1900 Alabama? You’re day would suck a great deal more if you had Quantum Leaped into that this morning…

                    1. But we have gotten past 1900’s Alabama. Black people today are just as free to get fucked by the government as I am. And they should be just as pissed about it. Fuck, there’s not a black man or woman under the age of 60 that dealt with state-sanctioned racism in their life. It’s all being beaten into their heads by idiots like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. And not because they want blacks to be free, it’s because they want to stay relevant in a world that has long passed them by.

                    2. So basically you are answering my assertion that government created hell was much worse for a black in 1900 Alabama than it is for us in today’s world by saying “yeah, but that was in the past”? 😉

                      Well, yeah, sure it was, and that was my point, it was worse then.

                    3. It may hav been worse, but there’s not a soul alive that can say he or she lived it. Hell, things were a lot worse for Sicilians under the rule of Caesar. But you don’t hear the modern-day Italians saying how much better it is for them all in comparison.

                      And do you know why? Because it’s not relevant to the discussion. Just like what happened to a certain class or group of people 110 years ago isn’t relevant to the discussion re: government intrusion and control in today’s age.

                      All that shit is whipped up by the usual suspects, be they the Democrat Party, the SPLC, the Rev’s Jesse and Al and even the NAACP, for the same reason. And that reason is to stay relevant and stay in control of their little financial and power kingdoms.

                    4. I’m just commenting to put out the sentiment that Quantum Leap is my favorite show of all time.

                      Deadwood is better, for example, but holy shit do I love Quantum Leap.

                    5. I see your taste in television is as bad as your tast in political philosophy ;).

                      Quantum Leap had for me the potential of being good, but it was too ham-fistedly emotional, Gilligan Island-esque (when will he finally get home?) and had Scott Bakula with his overacting for my tastes.

                    6. I missed your Deadwood comments, so I overlook your Quantum Leap love and ask your forgiveness. The first two seasons of Deadwood were the greatest television ever, period.

                3. Please list instances of state intrusion you have personally experienced in the past year.

                  About 80% of my workday is spent dealing with largely unwarranted government intrusions on the business of my employer.

                  So, there’s that.

                  1. And would you Quantum Leap to be a black man in the small government paradise of 1900 Alabama?

                    1. And would you Quantum Leap to be a black man in the small government paradise of 1900 Alabama?

                      It’s a toss-up.

                    2. I think you are either kidding or not thinking about this well…You really think you have it worse than a black guy in 1900 Alabama because you had to wear your seatbelt today?

                    3. That guy had the option of opting out of Alabama and moving somewhere else that was less discriminatory. Today, none of us can escape the government that controls and manipulates our every movement.

                      I guess I’d rather be freer and have to fight to keep that freedom than be enslaved and fight for every small shred of liberty we have left.

                      Plus, black dudes have bigger equipment, so I’d have that going for me.

                    4. It wasn’t as easy for a poor as dirt, oppressed black man to just get up and move North back then, and the North was not always so great for them either.

                      Even if you can’t escape government today it’s not nearly as oppresive on you as it was on a black guy then and there.

                    5. How many black guys did our government beat or murder in 1900’s Alabama just because they were black and uppity?

                      Now, tell me how many times that happens unpunished at the hands of agents of the state today.

                      Even money says it’s at least as common. Now, add in all the other laws that limit our freedoms, and I still think I’d rather be a black man then than now. But I’m white, so I can only guess as to how difficult it is for black men in today’s age with huge disparities in conviction rate, length of sentence and the creation of laws aimed at their race.

                    6. Do you have any ideas how many blacks were incacerated in the South in the 1900s? It was a shitload sloopy, really. Many Southern state budgets were largely funded by convict lease…

                    7. 1 in 6 black men are currently in the penal system, MiNGe. I’m trying to find stats on 1900, but I’m having a hard time.

                      I’ll get back to you when I do, because I’m sure you’re as curious as I am to find out.

                    8. Well, if I’m leaping in 1900, then I must pose this question: What wrong am I striving to put right?

                      Also, I admit Quantum Leap isn’t good, in the critical sense, television. But I just love it. It’s the kind of shit I watch when sick, etc. Also, Bakula got me into Star Trek, via Enterprise. Love that dude.

                    9. Anybody who thinks Alabama had small government in the 1900’s is fucking seriously deluded.

                      When the cops are willing to arrest businessmen who sell to the wrong people and are dictating who can use what bathroom, it ain’t small government.

                      Well, I learned one thing from my experiment with disignoring MNG, he’s still disingenous.

                    10. tarran, what’s up with all the butthurt? I guess I should have put “small government paradise” in “”, but really, have you been following this conversation? My whole point is that what many anti-government people that point to that past as better (like RC above, that’s how this conversation got started you know) are not thinking correctly.

                      I mean, what’s up? I guess I’m glad I just didn’t get the tired old “man, MNG you used to be so SENSIBLE, but nowadays, I just don’t know…” line.

                    11. I mean, how could you miss this part:

                      “Tulpa|1.3.12 @ 11:27AM|#
                      Please list instances of state intrusion you have personally experienced in the past year.

                      Then we’ll compare it to the list of social intrusion that went on in the typical American’s life in 1900.
                      MNG|1.3.12 @ 11:30AM|#
                      This is what I’m talking about. If you were a black guy in 1900 Alabama, or a gay guy in the same place or time, or a woman, then yeah they are going to experience waaaay more government intrusion then compare to today. And I’m not talking about having to work by OSHA laws.”

                      So see, I’m saying that all this talk of the “good old days of small government America” is b.s. because for many people government intrusion was waaaay more pervasive and intense back then. It’s the people who look at that time with such halycon nostalgia as small government paradises that I am MOCKING.

                      I mean wtf, you’re butts been more sensitive than a gay porn stars lately…

                    12. Well, I learned one thing from my experiment with disignoring MNG, he’s still disingenous.

                      He did give full notice that he was arguing against the strawman libertarian who wants everything to be just like it was in the 50’s. Once that notice is given, anything you say will be assumed as evidence that libertarians all want stuff to be just like it was in the 50’s. So there is kind of no point.

            2. It was illegal to live with someone out of wedlock.

              Bullshit.

              Common law “marriages” were common in early America.

              Boston puritans =/= All of America.

              1. “Laws prohibiting cohabitation and sexual relations outside marriage were very common until about the1970s.”

                Were they only in New England?

                http://www.enotes.com/family-l…..habitation

                1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage

                  The tradition of common-law marriage was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States in Meister v. Moore (96 U.S. 76 (1877)), which ruled that Michigan had not abolished common-law marriage merely by producing a statute establishing rules for the solemnization of marriages. Since Michigan did not require marriages to be solemnized, the court held, the right to marry that existed at common-law existed until state law affirmatively changed it. The Court held that in order to bar common-law marriage, a state’s general marriage statute must indicate that no marriage would be valid unless the enumerated statutory requirements were followed.

                  The bans on co habitation were a relatively late part of American law and far from uniform across the country. Like most destruction of liberty in this country, they were the result of neo-puritan progressive do gooders.

    3. I repeat. If the Republicans are stupid enough to nominate this asshole, I WILL vote for Obama.

  31. Just to be on the record:

    Pittsburgh over Denver
    Houston over Cinncinati

    Atlanta over NY
    New Orleans over Detroit

    I hope the SB will be New Orleans and New England, but more likely New Orleans and (yuck) Baltimore.

    1. I actually think the Bengals are gonna beat the Texans this time ’round. And I have no confidence at all in the Bengals. (They’ll then lose to New England 127-2.)

      1. They should considering the Texan’s injury driven slide of late, but we are talking about the Bengals here. They slid into the playoffs without injuries as the excuse…

        How come the Titans didn’t get that last slot?

        1. Strength of schedule. The Jets needed to win and both west teams needed to lose in order for the Titans to sneak in, IIRC.

          1. That’s what I kept hearing too. But the Jets and both west teams (Denver and Oakland) did lose.

            1. Jets lost to Miami.

              1. Oh, Jets needed to WIN, my bad. They needed to win because it would effect the strength of schedule? That’s a f*cked up way to do these things. It should be your record and in the event of a tie with no head-to-head then the team with the better conference record should win (in the event of that being even THEN maybe strength of schedule should count).

                1. That’s a f*cked up way to do these things.

                  Yes, it sure is. The solution to much of these playoff shenanigans is to radically realign the league (4 divisions per conference is absurd), but I doubt it ever happens and don’t have any recommendations to how it should happen.

                2. It should be your record and in the event of a tie with no head-to-head then the team with the better conference record should win (in the event of that being even THEN maybe strength of schedule should count).

                  Dude, that is exactly how the tiebreakers do work. The first 3 tiebreakers failed in this case.

                  1. Overall record
                  2. Conference record
                  3. Record vs common opponents, minimum of 4
                  4. Strength of victory
                  5. Strength of schedule
                  4.

                  1. Oops, screwed that up. Head to head is #2.

                  2. But Tennessee had a better conference record. That was my point. Before someone pointed out the Bengals beat the Titans head to head people were saying the Bengals got the spot because they had better strength of schedule. My point was that the Titans had a better conference record and that that should matter more than strength of victory, schedule or record vs. common opponents.

              2. Sorry, and needed to win for the Titans to get in.

                1. Actually, the Titans needed the Jets to lose and both west teams to win. That’s why they were still alive after the Jets lost and they won in the early games. When Jesus failed in Denver, their dream died. Ditto the Raiders.

                  1. Stupid Raiders. Ripping defeat from the jaws of victory!

        2. Bengals beat Titans head-to-head.

          1. Correct. The Titans won a three-team tiebreaker with the Ben-gals and the Raiders, but lost a two-team tiebreaker. That’s why they needed the Raiders and the Broncos to win, so Oakland went into the tiebreaker for the wild card.

    2. Atlanta’s pretty bad outside the dome and the Meadowlands should be rocking. I’ll take the Giants in a shootout while furiously rooting against them.

      Denver could have taken a banged-up Steelers team three weeks ago. Not now, though.

      Houston and Cinci is going to be bad. Like Jets/Dolphins bad. Unwatchable. I’ll bet on whoever is the underdog and have no opinion on who will win.

      NO over Detroit. When did the NFC get better than the AFC?

      I’m hoping for NO / Cinci in the bowl. I expect GB and Baltimore.

      1. Cincy and Denver slid into the playoffs. Awful.

        I still don’t understand how the Bengals got the last spot and the Titans did not. Same record and the Titans had a better conference record. Did the Bengals beat them along the way?

          1. Oh, then that’s that. Thanks.

          2. Which is another reason why I don’t see how Tennessee could have possibly gotten in, though we were assured the whole time that they could. The NFL’s playoff tiebreak scheme is awful. I hate the NFL.

            http://espn.go.com/nfl/standin…..rder/false

            1. Nvm, it seems Ten gets in due to conference record because Cin and NYJ never played each other. That’s why they needed the 3-way tie.

              http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/…..iebreakers

    3. If Denver gets a pass rush on Big Ben and maybe even knocks him out of the game, and they go back to their single-wing play that they were running in mid-season, I’d say they have an outside shot. But based on the last three weeks, it isn’t going to happen, so Denver’s going to get killed.

      Houston will win if they have a huge time of possession advantage, but if it turns into a shootout, forget it.

      Atlanta is just way too inconsistent, and Matt Ryan isn’t a clutch QB, while Detroit’s probably the only team with a real shot at beating New Orleans, other than New England.

      1. Denver just sucks dude. Here is a team that, knowing it was critical to win their last few games, could not do so, not even at home. On the other hand teams like the Steelers and Ravens really didn’t have as much to play for and still won…

        The way Denver and Cincy limped into the playoffs is pathetic.

        1. Denver’s made late-season collapses something of an art form over last 6-7 years. They’ve either squeaked into the playoffs and subsequently gotten killed in the first game, or just turned into pudding during December and missed the dance.

    4. This is all just reminding me that hoofball will soon be over and that I will not be enjoying Super Bowl Sunday in an apres ski joint in Stowe. FML. #firstworldproblems

    5. You forgot Green Bay

      And Denver is going to beat Pittsburgh

    6. I don’t see New Orleans winning at cold Lambeau.

      Brees used up all his mojo running up his stats trying to get the MVP.

  32. Salma Hayek knighted for having huge tits:

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

    1. If that’s the criteria she should have been made head of the round table.

    2. *eye roll*

      Her boobs would completely fuckup her ability to handle a lance.

      1. I don’t know where you put your lance but no woman’s boobs have ever got in my way…

      2. Ummm….Does anyone here think she couldn’t take Elton John in a joust?

    3. Her name is as pretty as her boobs.

    4. Looking at hubby, I can only conclude that I need to get some money and power too.

      1. first the Dockers(tm), and then the money and power… and then the chicks.

      2. Honestly, what that demonstrates is that no matter how “liberated” a woman believes herself to be, she still craves security and will look to “marry up.”

  33. BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEP

    Note for BakedPenguin: That is me backing my way into a chance to win our bet this weekend.

  34. This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view.

    “Surrender your life to Jesus. Okay, now this is what Jesus thinks you should do….”

    1. Jesus is my personal savior and gardener.

      1. Would Jesus smiting your aphids count as “organic”?

        1. Ask again later.

  35. All that talk of federalism is just a way for Ron Paul to create a theocracy. I shit you not, that’s what they actually think.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/a…..roots.html

    1. Is that what they really think? Because liberals have been arguing in bad faith for a very long time.

    2. And here is another jackass that can’t read. Apparently, being against a federal law against something automatically means that you are for a state law against that thing.

      http://www.alternet.org/teapar….._ron_paul_(and_why_liberals_really_shouldn’t)/

      1. Last line, idiot makes up the idiotic word “tentherism” when the perfectly good word “federalism” already exists.

        1. He also hasn’t actually read the Tenth, either.

    3. “It might seem that Paul’s libertarianism is the very opposite of theocracy, but that’s true only if you want to impose theocracy at the federal level.”

      No, that’s true if you want to impose theocracy on any level.

      I think the problem here is that liberals dismiss the Constitution as an impediment to their goals, so they have no idea what it says.

      Either that or she is just lying.

  36. “Yes, but the whole point of the doomsday machine is lost if you keep it a secret! Why didn’t you tell the world, eh?”

    “Very good. You win a cookie.”

  37. Here is an asshole who just doesn’t get it:

    “Paul’s oft times uttered quip that private business owners have an absolute right to decide what to do with their own property; to make his point that it is legally wrong to tell private business owners what they can do with their business is laughable. Local, state and the federal government tell businesses what to do all the time. They compel businesses to pay state and federal taxes, business taxes, adhere to environmental, building, and safety codes and regulations, have liability and workers compensation insurance, file employee tax reports, and corporate filing reports, and publish a DBA notice.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..79642.html

    1. Yea, that’s a clueless argument. “Government shouldn’t tell busines owners what to do? But they do it all the time!”

      1. Here’s the best way I’ve seen of counter-arguing: In a society where most resources are under private control people’s opportunties are going to be inextricably tied to how those who control those resources exersice that control. In order to protect those without the control from that exercise of control from things we abhor we will have to regulate that exercise of control at times.

        1. Sure. But how does that work in real life where someone or some small group actually make the decision on how to allocate resources? Is it more likely that governments are going to be homogenous compared to private industry? And if so, is it really a good idea to let homogenized groupthink allocate our resources in a way that insulates poor allocators from failure? For me, the last part — not insulating inefficient allocation from punitive markets — is the keystone. Any system that doesn’t include this is doomed to inefficiency.

          1. Sure, it’s a real danger to put government in power to prevent abuses by employers because as the Russians could tell you the former can REALLY do some abusing…

            But you can think there can be some basic regulations that don’t involve a whole lot of “small groups allocating resources” (or only “allocating resources” in the most indirect of ways).

            1. That’s what I WANT. A whole lot of small groups allocating varying amounts of resources, not just one or two small groups allocating all the resources. And I want a system that is doesn’t rely on force or fiat to keep favored groups of inefficient allocators allocating large amounts of resources, nor forces groups to allocate inefficiently by same force and fiat.

              1. I see your point. I guess the response is that government controls that are limited and in the context of an open, democratic government > than property owners having total control over most people’s work experiences.

        2. Re: MNG,

          In a society where most resources are under private control people’s opportunties are going to be inextricably tied to how those who control those resources exersice that control. In order to protect those without the control from that exercise of control from things we abhor we will have to regulate that exercise of control at times.
          The problem is that you would be begging the question, as the justification to control private property (that the use would be inextricably be tied to the private property users) would be the same solution: to inextricably tie the use of the property to decisions made by another party, i.e. a government. You still have the same problem.

          1. Not quite OM, in theory at least our government is open to control by the people.

            1. Re: MNG,

              in theory at least our government is open to control by the people.

              Aren’t people private entities?

              See how you’re begging the question?

              1. No, the idea is that the controls could come from the property owners or from the majority of voters and that since the latter is > it would be better for most.

                1. Re: MNG,

                  No, the idea is that the controls could come from the property owners or from the majority of voters and that since the latter is > it would be better for most.

                  You still have the same problem. People do not think like the Borg, so you have potentially millions of self-interested individuals wanting to control the property of another set of individuals. There’s no difference in essence between having one set dispose of the property counter the other set – you still leave the property in the hands of private individuals. Just adding the canard that it would be more fair to have the majority rule over the property does not solve the problem, it would be a non sequitur – i.e. why would it be fair to have a majority take over the minority’s property? What’s there to stop the majority from doing pogroms against minorities?

                  1. I see your point, a majority could decide to exercise control over property in ways that harm groups. This is of course how many Jim Crow laws worked, even if you wanted blacks to be served and employed in your business the law might block that.

                    The answer to why it would be better to have majority control over property as opposed to a smaller group having that control is the same answer as to why people generally think democracy or majority rules in any situation is better than the alternative. Whatever else can be said about it, in theory the majority is not going to oppress itself, and you get a majority of the people not-oppressed. Sure, majority rule can suck for minorities, but minority rule can suck for majorities (and other minorities) and is usualy worse…

        3. Here’s the problem with that argument:

          In the context of racial discrimination laws, by definition both sides have resources, or the issue wouldn’t even arise.

          If I’m selling hamburgers, I’m not selling them for free. I’m only selling them to people with money. I give you a hamburger; you give me a dollar. If you don’t have a dollar, we don’t have an exchange.

          That means you can’t require “protection” from the fact that I might decide to not sell you a hamburger because I don’t like you for some inane reason. If I don’t sell you a hamburger, you still have your dollar. And if my hamburgers cost a dollar, that means that the “resource” you still have (your dollar) is worth exactly the same as the “resource” I didn’t give you (my hamburger).

          The laws against racial discrimination in retail sales have nothing to do with actual economic harm and everything to do with people’s feelings. It is hurtful to people to be personally rejected by shop owners. That’s the real issue: pride. But let’s at least call it that instead of coming up with economically fantastical explanations about “resources” that don’t stand up to even minimal scrutiny.

          1. “That’s the real issue: pride.”

            You might call it “dignity”, but OK.

            More importantly though, you might decide, absent CR law, that you don’t want to sell burgers to black people. If enough people that sell burgers agree with you then it can make it hard for a black person to get a burger.

            Multiply that by all the things people might want or need and it gets pretty bad for that group, and we’re not just talking pride…

            1. It’s a circular argument though, because if enough people want to deny blacks (insert item here), there won’t be laws against discrimination anyway in a democracy. Making the laws is a post script to cultural changes whereby the free market has already granted “enough” access.

              1. This is why you see the dynamic you did in the 1960’s: a federal, national government targeting local governments discrimination., and why you get many pro-civil rights people nervous about plans to cut down the federal government. They see federal intrusion as having thwarted state intrusions they abhorred.

                Don’t underestimate how it is easier for “local prejudices” to become laws in smaller, less diverse political units than in larger, multi-regional ones (the Founders wrote some stuff about that).

            2. I understand what you are saying…

              Yet there are still barber shops down South that won’t take white customers.

            3. If enough people that sell burgers agree with you then it can make it hard for a black person to get a burger.

              I do not hear the ring of plausibility, but I smell a great business opportunity.

              1. Have you read King’s I have a Dream Speech? There’s a part in it where he talks about how blacks could not get put up for the night when they travelled. It was a real problem. When the CRA was being debated they had congressional hearings finding that it was a real problem and a real bitch for blacks in America.

                The libertarian pat answer is “well if you don’t sell blacks burgers I will and so the market solves it!” But history doesn’t tell that story, indeed, economics doesn’t. As long as I would lose more customers than I would gain by serving blacks I would be irrational to do so, and in many very racist areas you would certainly have lost more business by serving blacks than you would by not….

                A ton of private businesses discriminated even when the law did not require it (remember the Woolsworth sit ins?). That’s history dude.

                1. If you’re the only place selling to blacks, you get all the black customers, and some number of the others who don’t mind that you sell to blacks.

                  1. You have to wonder how all those places that had virtually no places selling to blacks existed back then, don’t you?

                    Not everyone btw has the capital to just up and open an establishment. But let’s say you did. You could open an establishment catering to those blacks, but if you could make more money opening one that excluded them then you would do that. Remember most of the blacks were a. minorities in these areas and b. poor as shit.

                    You also need to remember that no business exists in a vacuum: if the food and restaurant suppliers around you are prejudiced maybe they don’t deal with you either, and you’re business becomes harder to pull off…

                    1. You have to wonder how all those places that had virtually no places selling to blacks existed back then, don’t you?

                      If that’s true, I do wonder. If you happen to have a hypothesis, you might mention it. I suspect that laws preventing such things may have had some small effect. I’d be surprised if there wasn’t a counter-economy consisting of such establishments.

                      Not everyone btw has the capital to just up and open an establishment.

                      No kidding. But not everyone has to have the capital.

                      How on earth do people manage to get the capital to start lucrative drug processing and distribution businesses? Or would those not exist if not for the Civil Right Act?

          2. And if my hamburgers cost a dollar, that means that the “resource” you still have (your dollar) is worth exactly the same as the “resource” I didn’t give you (my hamburger).

            Not strictly true: the reason the trade would happen in the first place is because the burger is worth more to the person who starts out with the dollar than the dollar is, and the dollar is worth more to the burger-seller than the burger is. If this weren’t the case, the trade would never take place, because either the burger-seller would refuse to sell, or the buyer would refuse to buy. Which is to say, the final allocation of goods scores higher against both utility functions than the initial allocation of goods. So, if you refuse to sell someone a burger, you really are stopping the person from acquiring some utilons – but so what. When someone propositions you for sex and you say no, you’re doing the same thing. It’s your goddamn burger.

      2. I think it’s because “right” can mean either a descriptive statement about what the law allows, or a prescriptive statement about what the law should allow in order to be just. Obviously Paul intended it as the latter, and the idiot writer is interpreting as the former.

    2. Business men are just like soldiers, you see. If the government tells them to jump, they enthusiastically yelp, ‘how high, sir!’ They never change their behavior based on how difficult the obstacles the government puts in front of them. Never.

      1. Do you know why the internet was invented? This is fucking why, you idiots.

        1. That’s not supposed to be a reply, squirrels. Jesus.

          1. Toy #3 is still broken? 🙁

        2. The squirrels are trying to tear our love apart, Warty. What they get out of it besides their petty yucks, I don’t know.

        3. “I bite you neck!”

        4. Its porn, right?

        5. Finally got that lazy tabby fucker to bat at the string. Fucking prick.

  38. Q: What does it mean that the two most popular super-heroes right now (Iron Man and Batman) are both incredibly wealthy men who head huge corporate entities and who were born into wealth?

    1. It means Hollywood doesn’t have any good ideas and is just retelling the Bruce Wayne story over and over again.

      1. The Establishment coalesced into its excuse-making mode, justifying black terrorism in various ways.

      2. I saw a commercial for Rise of the Planet of the Apes last night. Not only is Hollywood reliant on sequels and remakes, they are reliant on remakes of sequels (and bad sequels at that).

      3. It means that men don’t fantasize about being losers.

      4. What I think is most bizarre is when they ostensibly steal characters and stories from the past but then make a film that has nothing to do with the history of those characters and stories (think Sherlock Holmes). Why even have “Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows” when the character and story have almost nothing in common with actual Sherlock Holmes stories; why not just call it “Bob Smith, Victorian Adventurer: Game of Shadows?”

        1. Because people have heard of Sherlock Holmes.

          Heck, if you changed the character and place names, and a couple of costume details, in Nolan’s Batman movies, it could easily pass as a completely independent franchise.

          1. I dunno, I’m a pretty big Batman comics fan and if anything Nolan’s pics are about the closest Hollywood has come to tapping into that.

        2. I agree. If you forget the name “Sherlock Holmes”, those movies are fun and worth watching. If you try to look at them as a Holmes story you are like, WTF did they do?

          1. I think both films were great fun, but both had pretty much nothing in common with Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories.

            1. This is my problem with the Jason Bourne franchise.

    2. I don’t think the current popularity of those two superheroes necessarily has anything to do with the unearned, born-into wealth backstory. Frankly, I think it’s a meme that makes writing the story of guys with fabulous, and presumably expensive, toys, nothing but free time, and some sort of moral compunction to be do-gooders, a bit easier.

      1. Plus, it has a lot to do with their respective characters’ attitude. Both Bruce Wayne and Tony Stark have the world on a string, and they know it. What’s more, they actually embrace their role as crime-fighters/super-heroes–they honestly get their rocks off beating up bad guys and don’t feel the need to apologize or second-guess themselves for it. That kind of confidence is immensely appealing to American audiences.

        1. Good points Restoras and RRR. But I wonder if it isn’t a bit of how people like to see and fantasize about being wealthy. Think of a show/movie like those Godawful Sex in the City or the Notebook; in both you have a “love is more important than material possessions and wealth” story but it’s of course set with wealth, possessions and conspicuous comsumption aplenty going on all around it. You get your cake (decrying the importance of wealth and consumption) and eat it too (vicariously enjoying all that).

          1. Speaking of The Notebook, I believe we have some Nicholas Sparks reviews due soon, yes?

            1. [hangs head in shame]

              Yes, but they’re not on Netflix and I haven’t made it out to buy them yet.

          2. But I wonder if it isn’t a bit of how people like to see and fantasize about being wealthy.

            Maybe, although I suspect that might be stretching it a bit. I’m not sure that most people, if they were playboy millionaires (and in all honesty, there’s a reason the stereotype exists), sit in the theater and think, “Man, if I was as rich and powerful as Bruce Wayne, I’d get dressed up in a bat suit and go around at night kicking the shit out of people too!” Those kinds of fantasies tend to be limited to socially and physically stunted nerds, not the average Chad or Sue Youbetcha that turns the movies into blockbuster franchises.

            1. Do you really presume to know how Chad fantasizes about Batman?

              1. Fantasizes about Batman or about being Batman?

              2. Put it this way–look at two movies geared specifically towards the nerd demographic–Kickass and Scott Pilgrim. Both were big hits on the Pathetic Nerd circuit as comics, but at the box office they didn’t do so well. The former made $48 million domestic, the latter $31 million. That’s because these movies at their core embodied all the social pathologies that nerds can relate to, without any of the mainstream appeal to bring in other demographics. Most people who aren’t emotionally crippled would find the protagonists in those films either creepy or just plain pathetic, and not someone whose personality or life they’d wish to emulate.

                What people like about Batman and Iron Man is they do what they want, when they want; they do it in service of something greater than themselves; and they don’t agonize about it like some emo schlub.

    3. It means that Hollywood ran out of ideas a long time ago and is rehashing 40 year old comics because they got them optioned at a reasonable price.

      1. Ricardo Cortez was the ultimate Sam Spade.

    4. It means that a re-imagining of Hank Rearden as a superhero is just around the corner.

      1. Except for the born-into-wealth part.

    5. Q: What does it mean that the two most popular super-heroes right now (Iron Man and Batman) are both incredibly wealthy men who head huge corporate entities and who were born into wealth?

      The Nolan Bruce Wayne, at least, is pissing away his inheritance on equipment and plots to fight crime. He derives no personal benefit from it.

      Also, he became a great superhero without using his wealth at all.

      1. He’s also shown to be a pretty savy businessman, for example in Batman Begins when he gets his company control from Hauer.

      2. Also, he became a great superhero without using his wealth at all.

        Not quite. In the Nolan-verse, The League of Shadows is only interested in training him because he is Bruce Wayne, Scion of Gotham.

  39. India: Muslim convert-bride and minister arrested for failing to register her conversion with government authorities. “As per the amended Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, a person is required to obtain permission from the district collector before converting to other religion. In this case, this permission was not obtained.”

    http://articles.timesofindia.i…..ligion-act

    1. Why are they are fucking ally again? Yet another example of Washington being right about entangling alliances.

      1. typing hard. “Why are they a …”

      2. “Why are they are fucking ally again?”

        Just the curry alone makes it worth it.

      3. India isn’t actually an ally of the US. They played a leading role in the non-aligned movement during the Cold War claiming to seek a path between the East and the West.

        In actual fact, they tended to be closer to the Soviets for many of those years. Much of their military hardware is now either Russian imports or adapted from it and manufactured under license.

        But they have never actually concluded a military treaty with either side.

    2. I’m guessing that in Hindi, “Gujarat” means something like “Revocation of”.

      1. The ACT-UP slogan is “Silence = Death.” But shouldn’t it be “SODOMY = Death”?

        1. How about: If you play in a sewer, you might catch a disease?

    3. In Washington, city gov’t candidly discriminates against non-blacks. Nixon’s AG John Mitchell used to call it the Amos & Andy Taxicab Co. But that’s unfair. Amos & Andy’s taxicab would get you to your destination unmugged and at a market price.

      1. Re: Coward,

        The thing that I find the most amusing is that you post those tidbits expecting people to be automatically outraged without even realizing that the comments are factually correct. Yoru action is not a show of wisdom from your part, it is only evidence of your poor attempt at being a mudslinger.

  40. The criminals who terrorize our cities -in riots & on every non-riot day- are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are.

    1. Twenty to twenty-five years ago? Well damned few of them were caucasian, that’s for sure.

  41. Those who don’t commit sodomy, get blood transfusions, or swap needles are virtually assured of not getting AIDS, unless they are deliberately infected by a malicious gay.

    1. Actually, he wrote that people who got AIDS “frequently” did so as a result of their behavior.

      That actually is incontrovertibly true.

      Every last public health authority (before the drug cocktail came along) actively pushed condom use as a way to slow the spread of AIDS.

      That means that the public health authorities believed that by changing a behavior they could slow the spread of AIDS.

      That means (drumroll) that “frequently” people contracted AIDS because of their (second drumroll) behavior.

    2. That’s pretty much true in this country – or at least it was 20 years ago. It’s sort of like saying women and girls who practice abstinence are virtually assured of never getting knocked up with child.

    3. Why am I supposed to be outraged by this little pearl?

  42. You have to love the NYT. Get this opening paragraph on climate gate.

    For two years, the mystery has endured: who set out to undercut climate scientists by publishing more than 1,000 of their private e-mails on the Internet?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01…..ef=science

    Ah no. Those emails were on a government server and being withheld in violation of FOIA. There was nothing private about them.

    Is there any universe where a corporate whistle blower leaks incriminating e-mails and the Times would refer to said e-mails as “private e-mails”?

    1. The Trilateralist Alan Greenspan will not be happy that I will take him on.

      1. Re: The coward who names himself “The Wisdom Of Ron Paul,”

        You sure say dumb things that ain’t so, you coward.

        1. All quotes are directly from Ron Paul’s newsletters, OM, unless I explicitly say they aren’t (this one isn’t, obviously).

          Just repeating your candidate’s “widsom” from his newsletters. Nothing to be afraid of, right? Just the man in his own words.

          1. Re: Coward,

            All quotes are directly from Ron Paul’s newsletters, OM

            And obviously, you want me to take your word for it. Nope, doesn’t work like that, coward.

            Show me the money, or bug off. And NO, I am not going to look at tweets. Fuck you if you try that one.

        2. At the end of the day we can’t allow a nutter like Paul to take over the GOP. I’m for Santorum, but vote for anyone–Romney, Gingrich, Perry, ANYONE but
          Paul.

          –NOT A NEWSLETTER–

          1. “I’m for Santorum”

            Great! I’ll help you make some.

          2. So you are against Ron Paul because he doesn’t hate gays, am I right?

          3. Yeah the only nutter who actually wants to prevent our country from reaching Greek levels of debt to GDP.

        3. Sounds like Brad DeLong. Who is Brad Delong. From a post up this morning on Bob Wenzel’s site:

          DeLong, is a professor of Economics at the University of California, Berkeley. He served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury in the Clinton Administration under Lary Summers. He is also a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research, and is a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.

          So in other words, DeLong worked for Summers, who fired Iris Mack, who worked her way out of the New Orleans ghetto to earn a PhD in applied mathematics from Harvard University. She then ended up at Harvard Management where she realized HM was putting the Harvard endowment portfolio in jeopardy with its derivative positions. She emailed Summers about the dangers and was then fired from HM.

          Here are some screwy quotes of Mr. Delong:

          Ron Paul is the candidate for those who think that the Trilateral Commission and the CFR is coming to kill us all–not to mention that the homes [sic], the Blacks, the lesbians, and the Mexicans are coming to do the same…

          Less charitably (and, I think, more honestly), Ron Paul by and large only gives a shit about maximizing the freedom of white men?.

          Yeah, that guy is a serious person engaged in serious policy that effects the lives of the rest of us. Excuse me while I divest. Or vomit.

      2. Morning, Brad.

    2. That’s a big stretch. Governments employ, and serve, lots of people in many capacities. A ton of things that are commonly thought of as private are on a “government server.” That doesn’t make them not private.

      1. Re: MNG,

        Governments employ, and serve, lots of people in many capacities. A ton of things that are commonly thought of as private are on a “government server.” That doesn’t make them not private.

        Yes, it does, MNG – LEGALLY, it does.

      2. We’re not talking about medical records here, MNG.

        1. We’re talking about the records of teachers at a public college. I think the emails they write are correctly usually thought of as “private.”

          I’m not sure my old college History profs emails should be thought of as public records just because the government pays his salary and owns the server he sent them on.

          1. At least not absent a FOIA…

            1. Notice the FOIA in John’s original post.

              1. Because there is an FOIA for something doesn’t mean it now belongs to the public. If you FOIA’d records at your nearest agency and they drug their feet on getting back to you you would not be justified in running in and downloading them…

                1. I’m not defending any non-compliance with the FOIA laws btw, that’s indefensible.

                  1. It’s funny watching MNG pander to the privacy of these emails, yet not give the PRIVATELY HELD MONIES of each of us the same consideration. Those are needed to save the WORLD!!

                  2. It’s funny watching MNG pander to the privacy of these emails, yet not give the PRIVATELY HELD MONIES of each of us the same consideration. Those are needed to save the WORLD!!

          2. Re: MNG,

            We’re talking about the records of teachers at a public college. I think the emails they write are correctly usually thought of as “private.”

            Well, you know what they say about government establishing what is reality… through positivism.

            They are the only ones to blame – they wanted Big Daddy Government to fund their research, they got what they deserved.

            1. “What, this comes with strings!?!” 😉

          3. They are subject to FOIA. Every government computer has a big banner that says you have no expectation of privacy on it.

            Those are not private emails under any reasonable definition of the term.

          4. I think the emails they write are correctly usually thought of as “private.”

            Not if they’re using their official college accounts. Other than emails involving individuals’ medical details or grades (which you shouldn’t be sending via email anyway), it’s all public.

            I would never send an email using my .edu account that would be damaging to have printed on the front page of USA Today the next morning. Stuff like that I speak about in private.

            1. I’m not being technical here. Legally they belong to the employer, yes. I’m talking about whether they are in common, everday life thought of as being used privately. Again, I think most people would find it a bit remarkable if my old college History profs emails=public records.

              Let me put it to you this way: if we could wire it so every public employee email sent were automatically copied to a big bulletin board, do you think that would be a good or bad thing?

              1. Let me put it to you this way: if we could wire it so every public employee email sent were automatically copied to a big bulletin board, do you think that would be a good or bad thing?

                On this board, you really ask that question?

          5. Anybody who thinks an email on their employer’s system is “private” is an idiot. Regardless of whether their employer is a government agency.

            1. Dated a girl who had no concept of this. I like getting sexually explicit email and attachment as much as the next guy, but not to my work email account from her .state.us account. I nearly shat myself. And immediately picked up the phone and made very clear that we did not want to be defending these emails when the good government guys requested every email from her very dysfunctional department.

  43. A: Nothing.

  44. Dancing In The Blood Of The Fallen

    “Oh no, it’s the massacre again. Of course the Tech shooter didn’t get either of his weapons at a gun show, nor did he violate Virginia’s OHM law which makes talking about the killings at VA Tech A) irrelevant and 2) offensive.”

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.c…..more-91585

  45. Ray Bolger heads up Brady Campaign Against Basic Arithmetic

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.c…..more-91513

  46. If Japan had had nukes in 1941, we probably would have made peace with them and given them what they wanted after Pearl Harbor.

    We ended up giving them what they wanted anyway. Or, at least, we didn’t interfere when they took what they wanted in more peaceful commercial ways.

    It just took several years and first they had to have a million or so of their citizens incinerated, either with napalm or nukes.

    By the mid 1970s Japan had pretty much achieved every objective in its Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere concept.

    Of course, economic dominance seems to tends to being short lived. Their empire hasn’t held up to well since 1990 or so.

    1. That assumes that economics is a zero sum game. We stopped them from being an aggressive fascist empire that killed or enslaved millions. And instead go them to be an industrial power who gave us great cars and electronics. That is one hell of a good result.

      1. Much of our activity during the twenties and thirties was based on the zero-sum theory of international trade.

        The question remains, how much of Japan’s belligerence in those years was due to some kind of innate militarism and how much to Western interference in a region they felt they had a right to trade in.

        IOW, did the militarist caste rise to power and encounter western resistence to its agression or did in rise in response to western interference which it saw as agresssion.

        1. The military cast came to power in the 1920s. In the 1920s the US was Japan’s ally and looked the other way as they raped Korea. Nothing the US did caused the rise of the class. Japan did it on their own.

          1. To be fair to the Japanese, they wanted to conquer two types of people:

            People currently being ruled by European empires.

            The Chinese – who once the Japanese got the boot, ended up being ruled by the Communists.

            I really don’t see how it makes the Japanese horrible evil militarist imperialist monsters because they wanted to, say, rule Indochina as a colony…when the French already were ruling Indochina as a colony.

            1. Which European empire had colonized Korea?

              Or Taiwan?

              1. Formosa was a pirate kingdom before Chang and the Kuomitong got run off the mainland by Mao.

              2. Germany had Korea before Japan.

                Japan got Korea because they joined the Allies in WWI.

                And the European powers had bitten off nice little pieces of mainland China for themselves – Macao, Hong Kong, etc.

                All I’m saying is that there was absolutely nothing morally unique about Japan in the Far East in the 1920’s or 1930’s. Imperialism was the business everyone was in. If engaging in imperialism in East Asia was a horrible crime, then the British, French, Dutch, and Portuguese were also guilty.

            2. The Japanese were pretty brutal when it came to atrocities. I think they even surpassed the Spaniards in South America.

      2. Not to mention the other lesson here that perhaps free trade and commercial contact will more successfully produce prosperity than military agression and empire will.

  47. If enough people that sell burgers agree with you then it can make it hard for a black person to get a burger.

    And the only way to make that a reality is to permit (encourage) the government to artificially restrict the ability of individuals to go into business making and selling hamburgers.

  48. Transgendered tampon ad:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..r_embedded

  49. Re: MNG,

    Have you read King’s I have a Dream Speech? There’s a part in it where he talks about how blacks could not get put up for the night when they travelled.

    Anecdotal evidence, MNG? I can come up with a thousand sob stories myself.

    When the CRA was being debated they had congressional hearings finding that it was a real problem and a real bitch for blacks in America.

    Right. The Congressional commission could have made a lot more headway if it had decided to repeal the Wagner Act.

    As long as I would lose more customers than I would gain by serving blacks I would be irrational to do so,

    And?

    and in many very racist areas you would certainly have lost more business by serving blacks than you would by not….

    AND?

    AND?

    You don’t think, MNG, that other businesses would have made a real killing tapping into that market? Why do you think Jim Crow laws were created in the first place? Do you really think because economic racism was PREVALENT? Bullshit! You don’t need a law to blink your eyes, or do you?

  50. More importantly though, you might decide, absent CR law, that you don’t want to sell burgers to black people. If enough people that sell burgers agree with you then it can make it hard for a black person to get a burger.

    Yes, because clearly black people are incapable of making burgers for themselves.

    The problem with much of the economic discrimination of JiM Crow was not so much the segregation but the interference with the ability of black communities to engage in economic activity for themselves.

    Much of Jim Crow was designed to keep blacks as a subservient class that would have to do the menial work that no one else wanted to do.

    Another aspect was to keep blacks dependent on the white economic structure.

    Far from not wanting to sell burgers to black people, white businessmen wanted to sell as many burgers to blacks as they could.

    What they didn’t want was blacks making burgers for themselves and selling them to each other.

  51. H&R College Bowl Pick ‘Em News:

    Bwhahahahaha! Suck it, bitches!

    1. The Big 10 has cost me 5 points. Fuck you Big 10. Fuck you.

  52. 517 comments?
    This is like the worst chat room ever.

  53. Wow! I can’t watch the video at work but that screen shot of Lisa Snell’s orgasm face is hawt!

  54. eve of battle, scorners still wouldn’t shut up. no one cares what non-participant of history has to say. keep the cynicism. keep fiddling while Rome burns. unlike our ever expanding numbers and an nonexistent “vote ceiling” that has to be raised time after time, you have no future.

  55. Most of the children when they grow up they want to forget about the school period. I do not agree for my kids to be chased by what they do now all their life. I have been popular during school but even so I also had some embarassing moments during that time. I would really not want for those moments to be known now. To be written somewhere, someone to have acces at themm. This is a way to Bind us in the future. With each day That passes we will be more and more knotted in one way or another. Sheeps in a herd, that’s what we will become.

  56. I do not agrre with that. For example, even if i was popular during school there are still things from that time that i do not want to be known or more, recorded somewhere.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.