India

Salman in No Rush to Die….

|

…decided to skip the Jaipur Literary Festival, the most prestigious confab of its kind in the region, after some churlish Muslim clerics protested his visit and demanded that the Indian government revoke his visa. Rushdie, who has attended the event many times in the past without any fuss, is a bona fide Person of Indian origin and doesn't need a visa, making it difficult for India's craven, vote-grubbing government to oblige. But Rushdie himself bowed out after intelligence authorities informed him that the kingpin of the Mumbai underground—and it's an open secret that they were referring to Dawood Ibrahim, a Muslim—had dispatched two paid assassins to "eliminate" him. In light of this, Rushdie said in a written statement, "it would be irresponsible of me to come to the Festival; irresponsible to my family, to the festival audience, and to my fellow writers."

But Rushdie's fellow writers Amitava Kumar, Hari Kunzru, Jeet Thayil and Ruchir Joshi refused to be cowed and, against the wishes of the festival's organizers, took turns reading passages from the Satanic Verses, in defiance of a two-decade-old ban.

Rushdie arguably did the sensible thing in cancelling his visit, especially given all that he endured during the fatwa years when he was forced into exile. But I can't help wishing he had been a bit more foolish and shown up—if for no other reason than to put the Indian government, the festival's organizers and other authorities on the spot, forcing them to protect him and his free speech rights or lose face internationally. His presence might well have derailed the festival. But an event that depends on free speech rights needs to stand up for these rights from time to time. Instead, Rushdie's decision gave all these invertebrates a face-saving way out.

Incidentally, the only Indian political party that has criticized the pusillanimity demonstrated by all levels of government—national, state and local—and has firmly defended Rushdie's rights, is the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist).

Thanks to Salil Tripathi for his helpful Facebook feeds on the issue.

rushdie

NEXT: What's the Conservative Case for Upholding ObamaCare?

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. A tip of my hat to the commies.

    That does not make up for everything else you believe being evil and wrong.

    1. You can always count of the commies to stand up against theistic extremism… after all, they can’t tolerate any eschatological competition.

    2. They want to kill Rushdie for economic, not religious, reasons.

      1. Don’t give the Dems any ideas… killing people for economic reasons might be right up their alley, given their hatred for success.

        1. “hatred for success.”

          seen any of the GOP attack ads against Mittens for working at Bain?

        2. That’s a good poodle!

      2. We don’t begrudge wealth. We begrudge excessive wealth gained through gaming the system. We begrudge wealthy gained at the expense of working people. We begrudge wealth that is used not to better society but to increase the income and wealth gap. We begrudge wealth used to influence our political system. We begrudge those wealthy people that think that because they had all the breaks in life, because they were born into the right family, because they were lucky and happen to be at the right place at the right time, that they are more deserving, more entitled to the rewards of this society.

        1. Blah blah fuckin’ blah.

          1. But you like *us*, right, Carter?

            1. We’re your buddies, right, Carter?

              1. Fuckin’ Mitt only made 300 grand for speeches? Shit, y’all, I’ve made MILLIONS.

                Mitt ain’t shit.

          2. I think he means that if you donate to Democrats, your wealth is A-OK.

        2. I’m good at gaming the system…

          1. I’m good at scamming in the courts AND fucking around on my wife!

        3. You’re so close, Carter, so close. You recognize that “gaming the system” is a huge problem. But your solution is to make “the system” even more powerful and pervasive. This is madness!

          The bigger the regulatory state, and the more powerful the wealth-redistribution bureaus, the more corruption and “system-gaming” there will be. Power attracts parasites.

          The real solution is to take away their power. Don’t give anybody the power to redistribute wealth, or to regulate markets ? where will the parasites go then? They will have to work for a living.

          1. It would be worth it, just to keep people from getting wealthy ever again.

          2. Wealth? Nothing wrong with it or the pursuit of it. The problem arises in how wealth accumulation has shifted from innovation and hard work to… well, the quickest and fastest way to make a buck by gaming the system.

            Professional executives who move from company to company, landing exorbitant salaries and bonuses while doing nothing for the company except cutting costs (and quality) by shipping jobs off to China/India and squeaking by with a minimal US workforce. Slash lower worker salaries/wages? Great job! That’s another bonus! CEOs, CFOs, once they land a position in a top tier corporation, they usually stay for a few years before moving on for an even more disgustingly huge salary and set of bonuses (which are granted regardless of performance).

            Then there’s the professional superinvestors who play an eternal game of threecard, making money off the investments of others with little actual risk to their own money, and who pay a LEGAL income tax of 15%, but typically pay a much lower rate than that due to there being so many fun ways to hide money… and when you’re that filthy stinking rich, you can afford to utilize those methods. They’re immoral, and they might come back and bite you in the ass if you’re running in an election, but it’s still LEGAL.

            1. STOP MAKING MONEY IN WAYS THAT DON’T LIVE UP TO MY ARBITRARY MORAL STANDARDS

              1. This seems to be something (well, one of many things) the right wing can’t seem to grasp… liberals don’t see wealth as bad thing. It’s how you got that wealth, what you do with that wealth, and your attitude toward those without that wealth that makes the difference.

                1. YOU EXIST ONLY FOR SOCIETY

                  1. Platitudes and bullshit, Carter.

                2. It’s how you got that wealth,

                  As long as its through voluntary exchange, its none of your business.

                  what you do with that wealth,

                  As long as I don’t use my wealth to violate the rights of others, its none of your business.

                  and your attitude toward those without that wealth that makes the difference.

                  My attitudes are completely, 100%, unconditionally, none of your business.

                  1. If you don’t have any social responsibility then I don’t see how you expect society to provide you with various expensive services that protect your claim to wealth.

                    1. What if you’re poor and don’t have any social responsibility?

            2. So Carter doesn’t mind rich people if they’re the protagonist of an Horatio Alger novel.

              “I don’t hate the wealthy, except those with faces and arms! Or the wealthy with two eyes; hoarding their extra eyeballs while so many poor live eyeball-less!”

        4. I apologize, Carter… it should read:

          “…given their hatred for success achieved by those who are not Democrats“.

          1. And you know what gets me? Let’s just go off the rails and say we do hate the rich. Yup , we hate them, despise them, can’t stand them, we want what they have, etc. etc. etc. Even in that extreme case, is it even feasible to think of the rich as victims? It’s not like we’re hating them for the color of their skin or some other unchangeable feature -they could conceivably earn our approval by giving away or burning all their wealth.

            And let’s say the rich don’t go this route and hostilities break out. You know what? They own the media, they virtually own the military through their lobbying activities, and they can hire their own personal mercenaries if they really want to. Any REAL class warfare would quickly end in a decisive victory for the 1%.

            I just don’t see how anyone can make the argument that the rich are being victimized in any real sense.

            1. YOUR ONLY A VICTIM IF IT’S RACISM

            2. Who is this ‘they’ you keep referring to?

              1. Platitudes and bullshit, Carter.

            3. First of all, liberals don’t distinguish between the rich who game the system and those who do not. The assumption is that if you are rich, you gamed the system to get there. That is why OWS talks about the 1% (an arbitrary grouping of people) and not crony capitalists. The only way to avoid this nonsensical opposition is to not be rich, or be a rich liberal.

              Why do liberals hate the rich? Well it all plays into this ridiculous class warfare mindset. Every nonsensical political movement needs a scapegoat – whether it’s the rich, Muslims, foreigners, Jews, etc – to distract its members from the reality of our political system and focus their rage to the benefit of the movement. The rage of OWS is no different. Ideologically it makes sense for liberals to focus on the rich since liberals view inequality as one of the great (if not greatest) evils.

              As to crony capitalism itself, liberals don’t offer a solution besides tax the rich. But we already tax the rich at a much higher rate than everyone else, and don’t those who game the system pay less. How will more taxes stop people from gaming the system?

              OK, liberals say, lets regulate the economy. But we already regulate the economy, and those who game the system lobby or find loopholes to get around legislation. How will more regulation stop people from gaming the system.

              So how do we solve this? By taking away the powers of system that really only exist so that some people can abuse them and gain a coercive advantage over others. The solution is not more government power, but less.

              1. This is like the worst chat room ever.

              2. First, it’s absurd to treat the rich as some kind of oppressed class. They are by definition the most privileged people in a society.

                Second, this is not only a straw man, but one invented by partisan hacks for the purposes of opposing even a 1% tax hike. A small tax hike is not the same as pushing the wealthy into gas chambers, however shocking that may seem to you. And while you’re crying over the poor, oppressed rich who liberals are being so mean to, your rhetoric is servicing policies that further enrich the rich and further impoverish everyone else and cut them off from any ability to be upwardly mobile.

                Less vs. more government power is just a bad joke. It means nothing. It’s always gonna have the power to tax, so how do you prevent exploitation of tax law? Close the loopholes and put cops on the beat. Diminishing the role of government doesn’t have anything to do with it, though without question such a thing would harm the rich much less than everyone else.

                1. First, it’s absurd to treat the rich as some kind of oppressed class.

                  I don’t understand what you’re saying. Are you saying their privilege is proof that you don’t hate them and seek to oppress them, or that their privilege means that doing so is justified? Because neither one makes much sense.

                  A small tax hike is not the same as pushing the wealthy into gas chambers, however shocking that may seem to you.

                  And my stealing your wallet isn’t putting you to work on a plantation, but that doesn’t make it right. Try actually saying something instead of trying to fool people with rhetorical tricks, Tony.

                  And while you’re crying over the poor, oppressed rich who liberals are being so mean to, your rhetoric is servicing policies that further enrich the rich and further impoverish everyone else and cut them off from any ability to be upwardly mobile.

                  No, your rhetoric is doing that. When my tax dollars go to bailing out failed banks, that’s on you guys. When companies capture your regulatory agencies, that’s on you guys. Tax revenue and government favors are the only pies the cronies can take away from others. Your idea of government is the one impoverishing people, not mine.

                  It’s always gonna have the power to tax, so how do you prevent exploitation of tax law? Close the loopholes and put cops on the beat.

                  And it’s always going to be bought as long as there is incentive to buy it. You’re a fool.

                  Diminishing the role of government doesn’t have anything to do with it, though without question such a thing would harm the rich much less than everyone else.

                  One minute you’re saying the rich are rich because they use the government to make themselves rich, the next you’re saying they won’t be harmed by the government’s loss of power.

                  When are you going to realize that calling the government both the tool of the rich and the only thing that can stop them makes no sense. Pick one, fool.

                  1. When are you going to realize that calling the government both the tool of the rich and the only thing that can stop them makes no sense[?]

                    What is “never”?

            4. Given the government is constantly engaged in evils beyond my imagining, I’m duty bound as an upright American to keep from its possession as much of my wealth as I possibly can. The more productive I am the more heavily that compact of conscience weighs on my shoulders.

        5. So you hate the democratic party then?

  2. Gojira beat me to it: good on the Reds in this instance.

    1. The only good commie is a DEAD COMMIE!

  3. Incidentally, the only Indian political party that has criticized the pusillanimity demonstrated by all levels of government — national, state and local — and has firmly defended Rushdie’s rights, is the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist).

    Which Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist)?

    1. Is there an Indian gamboling party?

      1. The Marxist-Leninist Party of India takes a totally different position from the Communist Party of India(Marxist-Leninist).

        Not to mention the Marxist-Leninist Popular Peoples’ Front.

  4. Over the years since I, as a draftable teenager, sweated through my period of eligibility to serve in the Vietnam War, I learned that Ho Chi Minh apparently only wanted Vietnamese independence, however he could get it, turning to the Communists only as an extreme last resort, after all of the Western powers that he approached had him “talk to the hand.”

    To be fair, I would have showed Ho the hand, too, in the sense that I would not have wanted our government to intervene militarily in the cause of Vietnamese independence. But I wouldn’t have objected to having our diplomats lobby the French or other interested players in the region. I suppose that probably wouldn’t have done any good, because unless Uncle Sam crossed some palms, twisted some arms, or dangled some very attractive carrots over their heads, I doubt the players in that particular game would have budged an inch to placate the Americans.

    1. “Ho Chi Minh apparently only wanted Vietnamese independence, however he could get it, turning to the Communists only as an extreme last resort, after all of the Western powers that he approached had him “talk to the hand.””

      Hard to find sources on the issue that aren’t biased one way or the other, but having read quite a few books that touched on it this is what I see:
      Ho was definitely a communist. He was *also* a nationalist who hated the French.
      The US support of the French began as a sort of an offshoot of the Marshall Plan (for which Marshall carries no blame) and/or a carefully crafted extortion by De Gaulle; ‘give us moral, financial and military support in Viet Nam and we’ll use the money we save to keep France non-communist!’
      Screw the French; we should have given the place to Stalin and let them starve under communism for fifty years.

      1. Damn spoof handles….

        1. It goes back farther than the Marshall Plan. Ho Chi Minh allegedly tried to get an audience with Woodrow Wilson during the Versailles, which Wilson, in keeping with his stated support for the “self-determination of peoples.” Woodrow, the patron saint of democracy, being who he was, he most like meant that self-determination was only for Europeans and their descendants.

        2. Funnier with that handle.

    2. “To be fair, I would have showed Ho the hand, too, in the sense that I would not have wanted our government to intervene militarily in the cause of Vietnamese independence”

      Just to be clear on a point that “god” kinda buried — the USA was intervening AGAINST Vietnamese independence from the beginning. The USA only needed to stop bankrolling the French military actions in Vietnam.

      1. ricketson|1.20.12 @ 9:26PM|#
        “Just to be clear on a point that “god” kinda buried — the USA was intervening AGAINST Vietnamese independence from the beginning. The USA only needed to stop bankrolling the French military actions in Vietnam.”

        (That was me; the “god” handle was left over from a spoof in another thread)
        True enough *at the time*.
        During the war, the US (and allies) supported *any* anti-Japanese forces, including (to some extent) Mao’s gang of thugs. Again, during the war, the US firmly opposed spending lives and treasure in attempts to re-capture the far east colonies of the Euro powers; this pissed off Churchill no end.
        After the war, and after the end of FDR’s fantasy that Stalin’s word was worth more than spit, the US was stuck with the residue of that fantasy. And De Gaulle was a master at gaming that predicament.

  5. Goddamn commies, I will concede nothing to them.

    1. I am with you Fist. I am very suspicious of their motives.

  6. Every time I read about a protest against Rushdie, I think of the time I witnessed one live outside the Jones Hall in Houston on September 10, 2001, where a group of a couple hundred Muslims was chanting “Die die, Salman Rushdie!”

    1. The the, Salman Rushdie!

      Damn German Muslims

  7. Is it too late to issue a fatwa on JJ Abrams for the 2009 Star Trek?

    1. Or Woody Guthrie?
      Oops, already dead; shame his ‘music’ didn’t die with him.

    2. You mean Star Trek — The Watchable One by JJ Abrams?

      1. THREADWINNER

      2. You mean Star Trek: Star Wars Edition?

        1. That’s a Serious ‘WTF?’.

          1. Oh come on, in the new Star Trek there was zero attention given to thematic elements or any attempt to give the film a deeper meaning. JJ Abrams thought he could just skate by with loud, colorful action (and lens flares) and a likeable cast. And that makes it just like the Star Wars films, more spectacle than substance. That’s not neccessarily a bad thing, but it’s not what Star Trek is about.

            Compare classic Trek like Wrath of Khan to the new movie. Wrath of Khan dealt with the theme of getting older. Kirk was depressed that he lost command of the Enterprise and was questioning his life. The conflict with Khan and the death of Spock gave him a new lust for life and determination to live. It was really beautifully done.

            New Star Trek had none of that appeal.

            1. Khan!!!!!!

              Khan!!!!!!

              Yeah. So very tender and moving there. And substantial.

              1. I will say, the guy who played Spock was a great casting choice.

                I mean the alt-timeline Spock, not Nimoy.

                1. He didn’t look or sound like Spock… and we have no idea what young Spock was like in the original timeline. So I don’t know what you’re basing that on.

                  1. I’m saying, I like the way he played adult Spock (not the kid playing Kid Spock, if that’s what you meant).

            2. Yeah, Plinkett made this point, it wasn’t sci-fi so much as just an action film.

              1. But overall Plinkett gave it a positive review, which ended my respect for him.

            3. SFDebris had a good review of that movie a couple of weeks ago. It’s fluff, fun fluff, but very shallow. For instance they apparently edited out much of bad guy’s reasoning for why he was taking revenge rather then using time travel and his advanced tech more constructively.

            4. The thing that really bugs me about it is that there were themes begging to be developed in that plot. I mean, they could have played up the angle of Kirk and Spock maturing from a young punk and self-righteous geek, respectively, into the characters we know and love. Maybe have Kirk put in a situation where he orders someone to their death, just like what happened with his dad, and have Spock humiliated in a battle of wits where he trusted too much in his logic. The plot wasn’t totally barren, it’s just that Abrams doesn’t know how to develop things.

              1. I don’t like the implication that Star Trek needed a reboot. And prequels almost always fail. It’s an entire galaxy of story possibilities–relying on a prequel with familiar characters (but not the actors who are those characters) suggested standard Hollywood milking of a franchise rather than a brave attempt to tell a story.

                And it was mostly all spectacle, very little Star Trek, as you said. Though I thought the actors were good and the tone was more or less Trekian. But without some underlying philosophical point, it’s not Star Trek (at least not good Star Trek).

                However, it did exceed all the other Trek movies in revenues, and in this place that means it was the best.

                1. If it were me making it, I would have tried to explore some of the paradoxes of the original series. Like, Kirk being a “cowboy diplomat” who somehow wound up as captain for a militantly pacifist government; Spock choosing to associate with humans rather than Vulcans despite his embrace of the Vulcan life; etc. Abrams does briefly treat the second topic, but in such an implausible way as to be worse than not touching on it at all.

                  Plus there would be no sound in space and no interspecies reproduction.

                2. Wow… an entire Tony post sans egalitarian bullshit.

                  I am amaze.

              2. Oh come on, in the new Star Trek there was zero attention given to thematic elements or any attempt to give the film a deeper meaning.

                Thank God. The last thing we need is more directors inserting ham-fisted ‘deep’ themes into their movies. That is just another reason the Abrams movie is the one and only good one. No, I don’t want to listen to the captain or anybody go on a boring monologue. Also, the actors and/or the writers sucked because the characters were wooden and boring.

                1. Thank you for shedding light on how you could hold the foreign policy positions you do, Cytotoxic.

                  1. Another Serious WTF?

  8. Salman in No Rush to Die?.

    GUARDS!!!

    1. The headline writer could use a public flogging as punishment for that infamy.

    2. I was wondering how far that would get. I nominate this for a Nearly-Headless Nick Terrible Headline award.

  9. This is what the Jews, Americans and RAW have been doing to the world’s greatest scientist and greatest living Indian for the past 35 years:-
    “India’s greatest scientist and greatest living Indian publicly tortured in Harvard seminar, systematically and totally starved for up to 3 weeks at a time, made semi-starved and homeless and even blind for years, kept under 24-hour audio and video surveillance as well as surveillance of [and interference with] communications and electrical typewriter and computer use, document creation and photocopying, etc., by satellite for more than past 3 decades, systematically harassed and in poverty and neutralised and robbed of his work at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars per year, robbed of crores in his money and property in India by C.I.A.-RAW, forced back into exile in the U.S., all with full cooperation and participation of India’s RAW and India’s C.I.A.-RAW-controlled prime ministers, politicians and media — to keep India poor, weak and enslaved” and how this means the nuclear destruction of New Delhi and then the coast-to-coast destruction of the United States. See ThisIsWhatTheJewsHaveBeenDoingDOTblogspotDOTcom .
    Satish Chandra

  10. There is nothing wrong with Ana Ivanovic.
    NOTHING.

    1. She’s beautiful, but got way too skinny.

      And I’m no chubby chaser.

  11. It must be somethin’ to have achieved everything he has for his writing–but his truly great achievements?

    Padma Lakshimi and now Riya Sen? Line up his ex-wives and girlfriends, and they’d put the Bond girls to shame… He should get some kind of Nobel Prize just for that!

    1. *Does not know Riya Sen.*

      *Googles*

      Son of a bi…RUSHDIEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!

      1. Wow. Just . . . wow. You da man, Salman.

  12. All U.S. Men out of Australian Open?
    They forgot Serena.

      1. I keep forgetting, which one is the nice one?

    1. Does that mean my boy Isner lost? Fuck. He has the talent and the dominant game, but endurance, ironically enough, is sometimes not there. My oldest pal runs the facility he used to train before going pro.

      1. He lacks the ability to break serve and close out a set. His losing set was 10-8. He was also involved in the longest set of all time.

        1. Pretty much what I meant by lacking endurance to close out strong. Though it is not always the case. He had a great run last Fall where he only got better as the matches progressed — I watched him in Winston Salem — but what you said is all too true in the majors.

  13. I don’t think anyone at Reason is in the position of demanding physical bravery in the face of homicidal Muslim impulses after its weak-kneed punt on the Mohammed cartoons.

    1. I have been laying low lately in sympathy with the Muslim war dead killed by the Bush/Obama war machine, but this article makes me pop up my nut-job head.

  14. We have long memories, and that fucker Rushdie STILL pisses us off.

  15. So… they know that Dawood Ibrahim is the kingpin of the underground and sends out assassins, but they can’t actually arrest the guy? Perhaps they need to borrow a drone?

    1. Is this what the prospect of racking up a hundred million dollars does to you? Thank goodness I didn’t ask for two. Psyches?!? These things are for idlers and dreamers. Introspection? Where does this come from? It does not befit . . . behoove a gentleman to be introspective.

    2. Waiter! Coleslaw for everybody! Too bad no one is here.

      1. Two mice fall into a bowl of cream…

        1. Has anyone seen my triceratops? It’s fantastic!

          1. the fuck is going on here

                1. Now, that is acting.

    3. So… they know that Dawood Ibrahim is the kingpin of the underground and sends out assassins, but they can’t actually arrest the guy?

      Ever heard of Al Capone?

      1. So you figure they’re gonna get him on a tax rap?

        1. As long as the Indian version of Grover Norquist doesn’t get in the way.

  16. We begrudge wealthy

  17. Oh Monfils, you’re breaking my heart.
    And Djokovic is unreal.

  18. More blowback for the American Empire!

  19. There is nothing evil about being rich. What is evil is being rich and using your money to promote income inequality and try to shift further burdens onto people who don’t have money.

    1. AND BY ‘SHIFTING BURDENS’ I REALLY MEAN NOT REFLEXIVELY AND ENTHUSIASTICALLY SURRENDERING YOUR WEALTH TO APPROPRIATE PRO-DNC VICTIM GROUPS

      1. Who in hand stay in the same state as before…and keep believing the left will get them out of the whole are imprisoned in.

        the lefts sole purpose for these groups are to have useful idiots for a voting block but not attain any improvement in their circumstances.

    2. I paeon the great Carter P who somehow has managed to achieve the moral authority to decide what is fair and how much wealth a person is allowed to keep.

      Marxoids have a severe case of intellectual beaten wife syndrome since they seem to think that even if the State fucks over the poor repeatedly it really doesn’t mean it.

      1. Tony keeps bringing “morality” into the conversation, as if government is moral or immoral.

        And Carter – unless he is a cleverly-disguised regular *pretending* to be a liberal hand-wringer – sounds just like Tony, minus Tony’s occasional militant episodes.

        What they both don’t get, is if the Occutards and other drum-beaters keep pushing the gullible… there might be violence. Some of them might decide to go the ELF route, and start burning down McMansions – with people in them or not. Riots – not the Occutards shitting in the streets, but actual riots – might break out.

        And if it got bad enough… either we’d have a repeat of the Bolshevik revolution, or worse.

        And THAT would bring martial law. And don’t think for one minute that Dems wouldn’t succumb to the siren call of a police state any less than Team Red would, given the chance.

        Because THAT is where we’re headed, eventually, without regard to which Team is in power.

        It’s inevitable. All we can do is hope shit evens out and both Teams stop playing silly buggers egging on the masses to take up pitchforks and torches… or that such a revolt is, at best, delayed another few years.

        Stupid fuckers, just can’t resist poking the badgers with the wooden spoons.

        1. That is a great post Mr. FIFY. Does these fucks actually think the rich and middle class are going to let them just come riot and burn their stuff. They will call out the police and military who will club them like seals. And that will be just great won’t it?

          1. If they come to riot and/or burn my stuff, it isn’t one of the 8 cops in town they’ll have to suffer.

          2. Thanks, John. I’m surprised only Tony bothered to rag on it.

        2. Carter P makes me think of Carter Pewterschmidt for some reason.

          Mostly because I’ve never met a Carter and he sounds completely fictional.

        3. The policy changes Occupiers want and that are within the realm of possibility would bring us somewhere less taxed than the Clinton era. The hyperbole you employ is meant to shut down any debate along those lines, nothing more.

          1. Uh-huh. Sure, Tony.

            And IF your Team gets those “modest tax increases”, your Team will come hat in hand in no time at all, claiming it’s not enough.

            Meanwhile, the wealth-envy spiters will continue to be stirred up by the likes of Ed Fucking Schultz and other cocktards who think it’s cool to rag on people who make 200K a year.

    3. “promote income inequality”.

      WTF is that? I know what income inequality is. Can you give an example of “promotion”?

      Or do you just mean people earn different amounts of money? Is that the great horror you are referring to?

      1. If you know what “income inequality” means, you’d also know that it’s a fabricated trope of academia to point out a “problem” that doesn’t exist.

      2. Haven’t you seen those awesome “income inequality” commercials?

  20. Newt Gingrich looks like Dwight Shrute
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..hrute.html

  21. Feel the rage rising:

    http://www.policeone.com/offic…..-shooting/

    If this cunt going all death wish in the Target parking lot isn’t against their policies, then they need to change their fucking policies.

    1. “I would never have put any of them [the officers] in a dangerous situation,” Huckelbery said. “If this had not resulted in a shooting, we probably would have been praised for our work.”

      Mistakes were made, stopped cars were rammed, unarmed suspects were shot…

      1. “I would never have put any of them [the officers] in a dangerous situation”

        But she would gladly ram a van and shoot the people inside because they looked like someone suspected of a crime. No worries with putting non cops in danger. Stupid fucking cunt.

        1. Not just someone, someone who might’ve tried to use her husband’s credit card. Isn’t that what they have guns for? To shoot anyone who looks like someone who might’ve committed any sort of minor crime against any member of your family?

          1. Apparently so. And then arrest them on trumped up charges that they attacked you. And notice also how they all get a free pass for lying to the investigators. Sure their stories didn’t add up and they lied but since we think they actually didn’t do anything wrong, the lying is okay. It just makes me want to vomit.

            1. And she thinks they deserve praise, except for the quite minor fact that a few bullets leapt out of her gun of their own volition. Yeah, it’s pretty vomitworthy.

              1. In the media:

                “A suspected criminal was killed by police gunfire…”

                The cops never actually kill anyone their sentient gunfire does. Dontcha know!

                1. MY NUTS.

    2. I don’t know how you can go to that site without wanting to incite revolution after every visit.

      If you value any bit of your humanity, STAY AWAY FROM THAT SITE!!

    3. That is interesting site. Did you catch this story? They have booted the trustees from the governor’s mansion after Barbour’s pardons.

      http://www.policeone.com/patro…..n-in-Miss/

      So Barbour not only fucked the victims of those crimes, he fucked other inmates out of a decent trustee gig. What a fat tub of shit that guy is.

      1. Of the inmates being sent away is this guy

        Terrance George, 35, who is serving an 18-year sentence for two counts of sale of cocaine.

        Barbour couldn’t pardon the guy with the ridiculous sentence for selling some coke. NOOOOO He had to pardon the people who had killed their wives. I cannot express how much I hate that man.

    4. The person who fired the shots wasn’t in the vehicle that rammed the van. It’s possible, however unlikely, that she didn’t know that the vehicle was not moving under its own power.

      But if I had to guess I’d have to come down on the side of it being a bad shoot.

  22. http://cnsnews.com/news/articl…..-last-year

    Mexico now more dangerous than Afghanistan.

  23. Salman did the right thing in not going to India. This isn’t like when Kevin Smith rubbed certain types of Christians the wrong way when he made Dogma. Many times more people would like to clip Salman Rushdie.

    1. Yeah, but Dalmia couldn’t “help wishing he had been a bit more foolish” with his life. Not hers. His. To embarrass the Indian government. And if the assassins who had been “dispatched” to “eliminate” him had been successful…? Oh well, that’s the price he (not she) has to pay for freedom.

      1. Yeah. I bet his kids don’t want him to die for an abstract ideal. Seems like a noble enough reason to stay away.

        1. There are many ideals worth dying for, but it’s his (and only his) choice.

      2. Sometimes I wish Ms Dalmia was more foolish with her life. Or at least her job, since I have to thanklessly argue against her claptrap-filled immigration and energy articles.

          1. I have to thanklessly argue

            No you don’t.

            1. Hee hee.

  24. Dear Reason,

    Please refrain from mentioning the religous affiliation of assassins, terrorist, and murderers when said religion is Islam. The fact that they are Muslim has nothing to do with anything. Islam is the nuber one religion of peace. Thank You

    1. And if you say otherwise, I shall saw off your infidel head.

      1. What am I, chopped liver?

        1. Anyway, who can recommend some good hoppy microbrews?

          1. Not exactly a microbrew but my winter favorite right now is Theakston Old Peculier

            Plus it’s rather popular and easy to find.

            1. That was a rhetorical question.

              Do you know how to answer a rhetorical question, heller?

              You just put your lips together and blow.

    2. We’re Nuber One! We’re Nuber One!

    3. Right, because such a high percentage of murders and assassinations in the US are committed by Muslims.

      1. Why did you feel the need to specify “in the US”?

        1. His Defensive Mode has been activated.

          1. Does that mean he’s started hearing “All along the Watchtower” in his mind?

            1. No it means that cyto is starting to troll for people to join his pathetic little anti-life cult.

              1. CULT CULT CULTY CULT-CULT

        2. Perhaps you should read the supposed name of the commenter I was responding to.

          1. Er…I did.

  25. Ron Paul and his supporters are like those morons who went around saying the world was going to end last year and after it didn’t no one cared and they faded into obscurity. When America eventually recovers from the recession completely and we don’t go bankrupt and the UN doesn’t control the USD then people will laugh and say “Remember that idiot Ron Paul? lol Those fucking people were crazy”

    1. First, math doesn’t lie. Second, the US will only recover when the government gets its foot off the economy’s throat. Third, no one has claimed the UN controls the US dollar.

      I am not a Paultard. But Jesus, that is just a sorry effort.

      1. Thats why you need to learn to ignore the trolls John. They just come here to bait people. Ignore the shiney objects.

        1. Ignore the shiney objects

          But I can’t! For the objects…they reflect…me!

  26. Anyone ever read The Satanic Verses?

    I only bought it because of the fatwa, and didn’t really think it was that great.

    1. I have not. I do think that someday, NOT having a fatwa on your life will be source of shame.

      1. I got 6 fatwas, two warrants, and motherfuckin’ jihad out on my ass!

        1. I gotta say I’m pretty jealous

          1. Well, to be honest four of those fatwas are consequences of my posting here. And the jihad, I just woke up with after a night of drinking. Don’t remember a thing.

            The rest are blowback from being an asshole.

    2. The fatwa was my only reason for buying it. I didn’t particularly like it, but I do keep it on my book shelve next to my Ayn Rand and Christopher Hitchens books to piss off the easily offended who might be visiting.

      1. Apparently etiquette is dead.

        1. Like some of your peers wouldn’t put liberal screeds on their bookshelves just to piss people off, Tony.

    3. Oh that’s nice. I suppose you think we should not stop Michael Bay from being assassinated too.

  27. http://news.nationalpost.com/2…..b-attacks/

    Boko Haram Islamists kill over 100 people in Nigeria. They say they want to expel all the Christians in Northern Nigeria, but that can’t be their motive everyone here tells me it’s ‘blowback’.

    1. but that can’t be their motive everyone here tells me it’s ‘blowback’.

      Cyto, you are so stupid, it’s staggering. Blowback applies to people traveling halfway around the world to attack on U.S. citizens.

      When people attack their neighbors, it’s usually for different reasons, sometimes aggresive (let’s rape the women and take the land) or defensive (they’re planning on taking our land; we’d better hit them first).

      When participants in a conflict decide to attack a distant third party – at great cost – almost universally it’s because the third party inserted themselves in the conflict.

      1. What if those people travelling around the world get training and ideological inspiration from roughly the same people who act locally? Like the AQ member who tried to axe-murder one of the Danish cartoonists? Does that qualify as ‘half-way around the world’ ya sophist twat? The problem tarran is that you think or at least act like you are very learned but you’re actually pretty ignorant and lazy in the head. Please try to become smarter and more honest in your arguments.

  28. “Salman in No Rush to Die”

    I got it the third time I glanced at it.

    1. Libertarian writers are nothing if not flippant.

    2. I thought it was a joke about the fish that swim upstream to die until I did a google search.

    3. Haha! I get it now!

      1. That one’s old. Dennis Miller used it years ago.

  29. Alt text runner up: Satanic comb-over

  30. OT:
    Feeling “oppressed” by the political ads paid for by Unions (and some corps)?
    “Scalia says: Change the channel or turn off the TV.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/……DTL&tsp=1
    Or your fave AP reseller.

    1. I now have one smidgen of respect for Scalia.

  31. Pelosi’s kid, ragging on Citizens United via the HuffPo:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..21441.html

    My God… she’s as fucked in the head as her mom.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.