Ron Paul

Brian Doherty Discusses Libertarianism in the Post-Ron Paul Republican Party in the Sunday New York Times

|

Reason Senior Editor Brian Doherty (that's me) is in this Sunday's New York Times with an op-ed discussing the state of and prospects for libertarianism in the modern Republican Party in Washington after the retirement of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), with special focus on Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.). Thanks to the magic of modernity, Sunday's paper is online already Saturday.

Excerpts:

"There's a whole swath of people not getting adequate attention from Republicans or Democrats," Senator [Rand] Paul told me recently. These are independent voters who want to seriously cut government spending the way the Tea Party faction does but who also want a "foreign policy more of defense and less offense," as Senator Paul put it, and a "more socially tolerant attitude."

Senator Paul, who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, tried this week, in a talk at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, to become the voice of a new vision of Republican foreign policy. Rejecting the neoconservatism that has dominated Republican foreign policy thinking since at least 2001, Senator Paul summoned the spirit of George F. Kennan, the author of America's cold war policy of containment, to suggest that the United States can manage Islamic terror, and even possibly a nuclear Iran, without necessarily waging open war….

Just as his father made "Audit the Fed" a popular cause, Senator Paul told me in January, "I think I can do the same with 'Audit the Pentagon' " and fold defense cuts into his party's conception of fiscal responsibility.

Ron Paul's son is not his only legacy in Washington. A small group of freshman or second-term representatives he endorsed are admired and scrutinized by his supporters. The most prominent House "Paulite" is the second-termer Justin Amash, of Michigan. There is a new breed of Republicans who "are much more libertarian in their views and have the debt as their primary concern and will fight to protect civil liberties," Mr. Amash told me last month. "It's only a matter of time before these individuals work their way up in ranks and become leaders."

Mr. Amash embraces the libertarian label. "In my district, people have a good idea what it means: limited government, economic freedom, individual liberty," he says. "They see I'm against wasteful spending and for protection of civil liberties." Mr. Amash relishes how his libertarianism marks him as a rebel in his own party. He was booted in December from his Budget Committee seat by the Republican House leadership for, he says, voting against leadership-approved budgets that didn't shrink spending enough for his taste. Then Mr. Amash encouraged a revolt against House Speaker John A. Boehner in his January speaker election. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, a Ron Paul-endorsed freshman, voted for Mr. Amash over Mr. Boehner. Mr. Amash says that the leadership's anger pleases his constituents; they are "excited about my independence, excited to have a representative fighting for them and not just following the party line on everything."

Read the whole thing.

Read Rand Paul's entire Heritage speech on foreign policy.

A set of interviews by me with some House Republicans endorsed by Ron Paul, featuring Amash, Thomas Massie (Ky.), Ted Yolo (Fla.), and Kerry Bentivolio (Mich.) appears in the March print issue of Reason magazine, in the hands of subscribers now.

My book on the history and roots of the Ron Paul thing, Ron Paul's Revolution: The Man and the Movement He Inspired.

NEXT: Russian Opposition Activist Under House Arrest

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. I have to hand it to Rand Paul. From his trip to Israel to his triangulation on defense cuts he is establishing a real small government anti-GOP position worthy of presidential consideration.

    Now watch Santorum rout him in the GOP 2016 primaries.

    Bet me.

    1. Santorum will get caught with a gay hooker before 2016.

        1. According to Sandra Mike makes too much money on his computer to stoop to hooking.

          1. Just wait’ll Sandra hears what Mike’s making on the street! Whole new bot pitch!

  2. “It’s only a matter of time before these individuals work their way up in ranks and become leaders.”

    The working the way up is transformative. Once in power, I fully expect a President Rand Paul to end his destructive war on our troops, to continue Washington’s help of the nation’s farms, and to generally continue the Oval Office’s legacy of working ever so hard to fix the country from its capital.

    The difference with a libertarian in power may be that doing those things will give him the heartburn of a reluctant pragmatist. And that will be progress.

    1. Misery loves company. Here, have a Kleenex.

  3. Brian: You should have worked Rep Paul Broun(R-GA) in there. For the lulz.

    1. So you want to tar Rand Paul with the self-admitted ignorant hucksterism of Paul Broun, Jr?

      The idiot who submitted a bill to ban Playboy from military bases?

      1. The congressman whose voting record more closely matched Ron Paul than any other member of congress….YES

  4. “….discussing the state of and prospects for libertarianism in the modern Republican Party in Washington.”

    The republican party is trying hard to kill itself. Given their recent spineless and statist behavior their passing will be a gain for the nation.

    Libertarianism is eternal as there will always be independent minded individuals who value liberty. Unfortunately they will be eternally in the minority.

  5. as Mike explained I didn’t know that anybody can get paid $9572 in four weeks on the computer. did you look at this web site… http://www.ace60.com

      1. Mike can be a real tool sometimes.

        1. Fuck Mike!

          1. They did, via the computer,-)

    1. Mike is making twice as much as Eric from this morning’s thread. That other bot was a cheapskate.

  6. I’m really excited to see how the left wing New York Times readers react to this Op-Ed.

    1. There are many “trolls” there.

      (Troll = someone who disagrees with you)

      1. I’m not sure what you’re trying to tell me, since I didn’t call anyone a troll.

        1. True, but the NYT allows open comments.

          1. NYT comments are basically longer, better-spelled youtube comments.

      2. Re: Palin’s Buttplug,

        (Troll = someone who disagrees with you for disagreement’s sake and not because the someone has a better argument.)

        There – more accurate.

    2. Is that you, Mike?

    3. iggy| 2.9.13 @ 7:45PM |#
      “I’m really excited to see how the left wing New York Times readers react to this Op-Ed.”

      Seriously, I can’t see any comments on the link; am I missing them or are you posting in the future tense?

      1. Unfortunately, the Times doesn’t seem to have comments for some of their articles. There might be no comments on this one. Regardless, I’m sure various left wing blogs will light up with claims that libertarians are basically Hitler once the Times hits newstands.

        1. Yeah, I logged in with my NYT account and no comments for this article.

          Senator Paul was among the few Senate Republicans who voted against the fiscal cliff deal. It also leads them to oppose civil liberties encroachments like the Patriot Act and the indefinite detention provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act and to condemn “crony capitalism” as exemplified by the Troubled Asset Relief Program and other government bailouts they see as illegitimately serving Wall Street and banking interests.

          Having been elected in 2010 Rand Paul fortunately missed the HeyDey of the Big Gov GOP.

        2. iggy| 2.9.13 @ 7:58PM |#
          …”Regardless, I’m sure various left wing blogs will light up with claims that libertarians are basically Hitler once the Times hits newstands.”

          Pretty predictable; monocles, dead babies in the streets, KOCH BROS!

          1. Balderdash!

            A true libertarian would never leave dead babies in the streets, given their high nutritional value.

            1. True enough; I was being facetious.
              You can also toss them in the money pit to lubricate the coins. Makes the evening swim much more enjoyable!

            2. I didn’t know streets had such high nutritional value. Cement, asphalt, or cobblestone?

          2. Rand Paul wouldn’t be able to get to his Congressional Office without ROADZ!!

            1. That’s not true. Rand Paul has a privately funded jetpack.

          3. dead babies in the streets

            Wouldn’t that be littering?

  7. Spoiler Alert

    Anyone see the new version of The Thing? I love how they trick fuck you into thinking it’s either a sequel or unrelated to the original and then in the last scene turn the whole thing into a prequel. Stroke of genius. Great ending to an otherwise mediocre movie.

    1. Unwatchable shit. I didn’t make it that far.

      1. Oh come on. I LOVE watching bad B movies. Particularly science fiction.

        In college we would do B movie Sunday. We’d be too hung over to watch anything good, so we’d drive to the uni-mart and rent the worst looking movie we could find and proceed to dink away the headache. We indulged in such classics as Buckaroo Banzai, Remo Williams and Night of the Comet.

        Good times!

        1. But it’s not a B movie.

          B movies were movies that were made on a low budget, usually by a second rate or indie production company.

          The Thing prequel was a soulless Hollywood cash grab

          1. Who cares how much it cost? The point is, it’s so bad that it’s actually enjoyable. Never pegged it for the next Jaws.

            1. You see, this proves my thesis that horror movies and splatter flicks are the perfect form of entertainment, as only some weirdo, axe-grinding, that guy douche would try and find some political message in them.

              Unfortunately, Dr. PG does not share my love of the horror genre, and prefers her trashy romance novels and Diabeetus inducing serials.-)

          2. “The Thing prequel was a soulless Hollywood cash grab”

            Riiiight. A “cash grab” prequel to a movie that came out nearly thirty years ago and was a gigantic bomb.

            1. And has a cult following. Sort of changes things. Not as much as those movie execs hoped, apparently, but still.

        2. Night of the Comet is one of my fave bad movies of all time. Plus, the cheerleader little sister in it was saucy hot.

          1. Best line in a B movie EVER…

            Daddy would have gotten us uzis.

          2. Agreed, love that movie.

    2. Re: Francisco d Aconia,

      I love how they trick fuck you into thinking it’s either a sequel or unrelated to the original and then in the last scene turn the whole thing into a prequel.

      Hate to burst your bubble but one gets that right from the teaser trailers. The dog, the helicopter…

      1. Never saw the trailers.

        1. Re: Francisco d Anconia,

          Never saw the trailers.

          Huh! So, that explains your enthusiasm for the plot twist at the end.

          1. That and I’m not too bright. Hell it may have been billed as a prequel and I just wasn’t aware.

            1. That and I’m not too bright.

              STFU, FdA. Besides your childish and foolish belief in a movie that doesn’t exist, you’re a smart cookie.

              1. He thinks someone made a Highlander 2?

          2. Indeed, Old Tenochtitlan. There is something to be said for naivete increasing the enjoyment of a film, or anything else for that matter.-)

    3. I haven’t seen it, but knew it was a prequel. I’m pretty sure it was marketed as such.

  8. I see a book being plugged there… or are my eyes seeing thing?

    1. Come now. Brian Doherty has way too much class to write an article just to plug a book.

      1. LOL.-D I am still waiting for Doherty to include links to the ShamWow and the Slapchop.

        1. Maybe a coupon. $.50 off Ron Paul’s Revolution when you mention Reason at Borders.

  9. Ron Paul is the father of the new liberty movement. He is doing exactly what needs to be done, and much to my surprise, so is his son. I thought Rand might give in to the establishment, but it didn’t happen.

    Ron Paul has more of a following among young people than most realize, and his current strategy to retire from congress so that he can spread the Libertarian message to youth via rallies on university campuses, is exactly right.

    1. Interesting that as the Tea Party seems to flounder, the Ronulan Front for the Liberation of the Republic is blossoming and yielding fruit. Those two factions need each other.

      1. The Tea Party could have been a huge juggernaut, had it not been hijacked by SoCons, and stuck with their original Libertarian message.

        1. THIS THIS THIS THIS

        2. Hyperion| 2.9.13 @ 9:03PM |#
          “The Tea Party could have been a huge juggernaut, had it not been hijacked by SoCons, and stuck with their original Libertarian message.”

          Not sure.
          The SoCons may well represent a larger voting block than fiscal cons, so there’s a good chance it would have gone nowhere without them.
          It is certainly going nowhere *with* SoCons.
          Pretty sure a lot of people simply cannot grasp the size of the ‘spending problem’. It’s so damn big, its a series of zeros that make no impression on those who won’t take time to figure it out.

          1. I am not saying that SoCons and Libertarians cannot unite against a common enemy, proglodytes, who only want to restrict eveyones freedoms, well, unless they are gay or want an abortion.

            But, they have to drop the legislating morality crap that sweater vest was preaching in the 2012 POTUS primaries. That is a losing strategy, thankfully.

            1. Santorum was not a TP favorite.

              1. The media declared that it was so. If I am not mistaken, they called him a ‘tea party darling’.

                This is why we don’t need a tea party. If you are for liberty, just say you are a Libertarian, and fuck the PC bullshit.

                1. Well cripes Hype yeah it would be great if everybody were a libertarian. Then all of our problems would be gone. Instead we’ve had to fight the proglodytes with a mish-mash of factions, some a lot better than others. The TP did as good a job as could be expected. Where they go, I don’t know.

                  1. Where they go, I don’t know.

                    They shut up when they were successfully couched as the extreme right wing of the Republican party.

                    That’s not where they started, but it is sure as shit where they ended up after folks like Palin decided to hop on the bandwagon.

                    The TP’s major failure was they refused to define themselves. Consequently, others did it for them.

                2. This is why we don’t need a tea party. If you are for liberty, just say you are a Libertarian, and fuck the PC bullshit.

                  But then the Libertarians will throw a fit because they don’t want to legalize heroin.

                  1. “But then the Libertarians will throw a fit because they don’t want to legalize heroin.”

                    You BEAT that strawman!

              2. Santorum was not a TP favorite.

                Weren’t there polls last election that showed a plurality self-identified TPers supporting Santorum?

                I’m really asking, ’cause I seem to remember that.

                1. I don’t remember that. And ‘self-identified’ makes me eyes roll.

                  1. I remember it. The TP movement was hijacked by SoCons.

                    Now, Cyto, you would not have noticed since you have only paid attention to your perpetual war boner, aka, neocon fetish, yes?

                    1. Stop projecting your monomania regarding my warboner onto me and my warboner.

                2. I don’t recall any such polls. But, I think no small number of Tea Partiers ended up supporting Santorum because the media kept telling them he was the Tea Party candidate. It was one of those instances where Santorum and the Left had a common cause

            2. they have to drop the legislating morality crap

              l(L)ibertarians don’t ever endorse legislating morality? What would you call fiscal prudence and ferreting out fraud, exactly?

              1. One could argue that both of those things fall squarely within the principle of non-aggression.

                1. The principle of non-aggression is all about morality.

            3. Santorum was a big spender and big-government guy, but which specific examples of him “legislating morality” did you have in mind?

          2. I try telling people about hos the gov. “lends” itself 80 fucking billion dollars every fucking month through the printing presses of the fed, and I get mostly a ‘meh’ type response.

            I end up shouting, “YOU KNOW THAT WE CAN’T DO THAT FOREVER, RIGHT?!!”, ” DO YOU GET THAT?”, “HELLO!, McFLY, IS THERE ANYBODY IN THERE?”

            People think I’m joking, but I am really starting to think that the closer this shit collapses the less painful it’ll be. But we’ll keep this shit going for a few decades and billions will die.

            1. It won’t take decades or billions. But it’s really best to prepare.

              1. I’m thinking that the size of our military’s reach and our economic influence could extend this situation for a century if handled correctly. I also see the situation culminating in WWIII.

                I’m probably wrong, but that’s what the tea leaves tell me.

                1. Nah. The US military can’t do that.

                  1. I was thinking of the stability our military provides in east asia and europe. That’s the reason that western europe has been peaceful and, to an extent, socialistic.

                    Imagine economic and security collapse in europe. I think we’d see a resurgence of nationalism and a lot tin pot neo-isms like after WW1.

                2. Your tea leaves are correct, GBN. That is where we are headed. The US empire is weakening under the crushing weight of debt and corruption. Now, WW3, will not be like we can imagine from past worldwide conflicts. It will be small skirmishes all over the world, with the US trying to intervene until they turn inwards, having no one else to blame, but our own citizens. We are headed towards that end at light speed, it’s very easy to see for anyone who wants to see.

                  1. @hyper

                    Yeah, if you see my comment right above (same time as yours), I think I’m saying something similar. A lot of the stability caused by our military and our economic impact will vanish, and there could be hundreds of coups, takeovers, skirmishes, rebel groups all around, what is currently, peaceful areas of the world.

                    Also, like in Greece, people aren’t just gonna give up on their government goodies. Like I said, we’ll see a lot of neo-“-ist” movements and the violence associated with left wing, radical politics.

                3. GBN, I think that’s a very real possibility as well.

                  Much easier for the politicos to invent a bogyman to blame it on than to admit responsibility.

                4. I’m thinking that the size of our military’s reach and our economic influence could extend this situation for a century if handled correctly. I also see the situation culminating in WWIII.

                  I agree.

                  There’s just no viable military competitor for the US in the near future.

                  1. How exactly does that stave off collapse?

                    1. How exactly does that stave off collapse?

                      The threat of collapse for a sovereign state like the US is hyper inflation and a collapse of trade.

                      But the US is nearly in a historically unique position because the dollar’s status of world reserve currency. Which has the effect of exporting inflation and providing free imports to lessen the domestic impact of government intervention. Economic collapse will only happen after the dollar becomes just another currency.

                      It is my contention that it is US military hegemony that makes the dollar the world reserve currency. And that status will only change after that hegemony ends. Which will inevitably involve some type of military defeat. Until that time, our pols can keep kicking the can down the road and draw resources in from the rest of the world to dampen any domestic revolt.

                      Viewed this way, the US is a type of world wide empire, similar to many in the past, except that:

                      1) we ‘tax’ the ‘provinces’ in an opaque way via inflation instead of directly through looting, tribute or taxes. and

                      2) We lack any serious military competitors.

                      Depressingly, if this analysis is correct, the current US trajectory is viable for decades at a minimum.

                    2. It is my contention that it is US military hegemony that makes the dollar the world reserve currency.

                      I agree. Though, I could imagine a scenario where while the US military is still head and shoulders above everybody else’s we get bogged down in a bunch of unwinnable “small” wars, leading to us pulling of many of our foreign bases – further leading to continental instability in europe and asia.

                    3. I agree. Though, I could imagine a scenario where while the US military is still head and shoulders above everybody else’s we get bogged down in a bunch of unwinnable “small” wars, leading to us pulling of many of our foreign bases – further leading to continental instability in europe and asia.

                      Agreed.

                      I don’t like the situation that I describe. In fact, I hate it because I think that it can and likely will lead to ever greater tyranny at home and military conflict abroad.

                    4. So your contention is that we are going to threaten/force the rest of the world into continuing to use the dollar as the reserve currency?

                      We gonna come right out and threaten them?

                    5. So your contention is that we are going to threaten/force the rest of the world into continuing to use the dollar as the reserve currency?

                      We gonna come right out and threaten them?

                      No, my contention is that we already are, and have been for decades.

                      And that we do so subtly, without direct threats or actions that will inflame local public opinions.

                      The current paradigm has existed since 1971 when Nixon severed the last ties between the dollar and gold, and even that was only a modification, albeit a substantial one, from the Bretton Woods agreement. And it accelerated in the early 90s after our last military competitor dissolved.

                      From an alternative point of view, the US empire does provide benefits to its ‘subjects’ in the form of:

                      1) a more stable international environment, which leads to those states spending less on ‘defense’. and

                      2) Increased international trade, which increases everyone’s wealth.

                      For example, if the current paradigm reduces the defense budgets of European countries by 2-3% of GDP and the increased trade increases their GDP by 1-2% of GDP; then it is entirely rational for them to pay an ‘inflation tax’ of 3% of their GDP to maintain the status quo. Especially when that ‘tax’ is hidden and will not cause any domestic backlash.

                  2. There’s just no viable military competitor for the US in the near future.

                    And yet some think the US govt is vulnerable to a bunch of guys running around with ARs.

                    1. And that means dick to my right to own one.

                    2. And yet some think the US govt is vulnerable to a bunch of guys running around with ARs.

                      Jesus Tulpa, just when I think you duplicity and mendacity know no bounds, you “surprise” me again.

            2. “I end up shouting, “YOU KNOW THAT WE CAN’T DO THAT FOREVER, RIGHT?!!”, ” DO YOU GET THAT?”, “HELLO!, McFLY, IS THERE ANYBODY IN THERE?””

              See all those zeros? How may do you see? Uh, how many? Mam, please take a look at…. OK.
              Sir, could you take a look at this number? It’s the current…

              1. “But we just loan it to ourselves!”

                AAAARRRGGGHGH! *head explodes*

          3. “The Tea Party could have been a huge juggernaut, had it not been hijacked by SoCons, and stuck with their original Libertarian message.”

            They did stick with their original message, they just did it under the name “Campaign for Liberty.”

            I am 100% willing to True Scotsmen the tea party.

        3. I keep hearing that the TP was ‘hijacked’ by SoCons and I keep not seeing much evidence for it. It’s certainly tainted by SoCons. Libertarians are all too quick to assume that because undesirable element X is present in entity Y, that entity Y is lost to X.

          I think we should just take solace in the fact that this is happening because Romney lost and so is the top-down change in GOP attitude towards immigration. The grassroots movement to actually cutting government should meet with the establishment desire to make nice with Latinons in the GOP’s middle. And I think Rand is that middle. Lets just point this out anytime Tulpa gets teary-eyed over His Savior’s betrayal at the hands of Libertarian Judas. Twice the tears twice the fun.

          1. The cynic in me says that the TP movement started as a small, grassroots movement of Paultards and libertarians, but after the election of Dear Leader a lot of mainstream republicans suddenly got concerned with the debt and executive power.

            1. Conservatives were, to their limited credit, getting real pissed off with Bush and the GOP before Obama was elected. Years too late, but it’s something. Too many partisan asshats of course. Which just makes me less unhappy about Romney losing.

      2. Wait, isn’t Rand Paul part of the Tea party? He’s giving a state of the union rebuttal for the Tea Party.

        Most of that social conseravative = tea party stuff is not real, but manufactured by the media. That Akin guy was not the Tea Party candidate, but the establishment one. He only won because there were 2 fiscal conservatives that split the vote.

        1. THISITTY THIS

        2. JeremyR, if you are denying that the SoCons have tried to hijack the tea party movement, then I am not sure where you have been the last few years.

          I don’t think we need a ‘tea party’ movement. We need a liberty movement, and we have it via Libertarianism.

          1. We need a successful liberty movement, and the Tea Party has been the best we’ve had. It acts as the battering ram to break obstacles for and attract flak from the Ronulans. Media attention does not hurt the TP but it’s bad for the Ronulans. They are best left to work in the GOP shadow wars.

            1. … and the Tea Party has been the best we’ve had

              If the only thing the tea party did was to put the fear of god in shitty republicans, making them vote for a bit of sanity, then it was all worth it.

              I think they have succeeded in at least that.

            2. So they stole my vote
              Now they’re just so phony
              Remembering Ron Paul
              Leaves me down and lonely

              It’s a tiny little fetter
              Maybe this evil’s better

              But it’s not so bad
              They’re only the best we ever had
              They don’t need us back
              They’re just the best we ever had

          2. Except the Tea Party movement has fueled the growth of the Liberty movement. More than Ron Paul, the Tea Parties have been the conduit by which mainstream conservatives have been moving to libertarianism.

            1. Except, so far, the tea party types that have been elected have been the campaign for liberty tea partiers, not the external tea partiers.

      3. Actually, this shouldn’t actually have come as much of a surprise. The Liberty movement is gaining steam as the Tea Parties fall away because libertarianism is the logical conclusion of the Tea Parties’ (and much of conservatism’s) stated premises. Cognitive dissonance can only go so far. At a certain point, you have to follow through or you have to drop the claimed premises. And I think this is what you’re seeing. The more intellectually honest Tea Partiers are listening to guys like Rand Paul and adopting a libertarian perspective while those unwilling to follow through are left with a hollow message.

        1. Socially conservative does not necessarily entrail a desire to enforce one’s views on others. However, the imposition of *someone’s* values are inherent in any government legislation including leaving current government legislation untouched.

    2. There are quite a few very socially conservative anarchists out there. I’ve encountered a few who were handing out LP literature at gun shows and several others who were arguing moral philosophy on Catholic and Evangelical forums. Certainly not all SoCons are minarchists, much less anarchists, but they aren’t exactly rare.I’d say they are much more common than among Atheists and “skeptics” in my experience.

      There is also the huge overlap among fundies and Constitutionalists in their propensity to revere literal interpretations of ancient texts.

      1. This is spot on. Many libertarians’ social discomfort with cultural traditionalists is self-defeating in that regard. There’s nothing in scripture that says you have to institute God’s will politically. If anything, the bulk of it runs counter to that notion. And realistically, many social conservatives are much more worried about the state interfering with their religiousness than they are eager to impose it on others.

        1. Christian fundamentalists are a vile cancer upon the Republican party. If you can’t see that you are either very naive, or one of them and there for beyond help.

          1. Christian fundamentalists are a vile cancer upon the Republican party.

            Pinkotarians obsessed with strict equality are a pestilence within libertarianism.

            If you can’t see that you are either very naive, or one of them and there for beyond help.

            And the congruency b’twixt Communism and Pinkotarianism lost upon libertarians and anarchists proves their equal myopia.

  10. Think tank claims American workers should be more European
    Shorter hours and more vacations could help the environment
    By working 0.5 per cent less each year, Americans can prevent a temperature rise of up to 1.3 degrees

    1. Why the fuck would anyone want to do that, when you could just eat your first born?

    2. HAHAHAHA!

      At a time of 8% unemployment, the solution is to work less! Genius!

      1. If everyone worked 8% less, then the unemployed could take those jobs and we’d have 100% employment!

        /Proglodyte

    3. “By working 0.5 per cent less each year, Americans can prevent a temperature rise of up to 1.3 degrees”

      Might be.
      I’m pretty sure I can show if every Euro currently alive stopped breathing, we’d all be better off.

      1. The only advancement of humankind is technology. If technology allows us all to work less with a higher standard of living, then that is all great. This cannot be forced, only market forces and technology can make it happen. Politicians and bureaucrats only slow it down.

      2. Hell, if we nuked Europe, the combination of less people and nuclear winter would allow us to not only drill a hole in ANWR but also set it on fire and throw all our used tires on it without warming the earth.

    1. *is

    2. Is that an IRA leprechaun sniper?

      1. Close. IDF.

        1. Dr. Ruth for the win. She always look like a killer

  11. California’s state Senate Democrats roll out big gun control package

    OK, if this passes there’s no way I’m going to Sac. Californians, does this have a chance of passing?

    1. Of course it has a good chance of passing. Are you crazy? The legislature is now 2/3 Dem. It won’t pass court tests, but that’s a ways off.
      If you think you can live in CA and actually be “legal”, well, you were never in the military.

    2. I thought you had decided on VA?

      Really dude, the weather is nice and all, but they’ll take your money and guns and expect you to thank them for the privilege.

      1. They gave me more time to make up my mind.

        It’s significantly more money to go to Sac. I could rent enough storage in Nevada to keep my guns at.

        1. “It’s significantly more money to go to Sac.”
          Has to be. No one moves to CA without enough compensation to cover the taxes.
          But I’m not sure keeping the guns OOS will satisfy the CA gov’t. Again, were you in the military?

          1. Never been in the military. I did once throw imaginary grenades during recess, though.

            1. I did once throw imaginary grenades during recess, though.

              and that was just yesterday!

            2. Well, you’re in violation of X.

  12. http://sacramento.cbslocal.com…..ing-spree/

    Egads. But this goes to show what I have been saying, a lot of people really hate cops.

    1. Dunphy says you’re a liar, John, but I think the public support of the cops is a fear based response and is largely overestimated.

      1. If you are siding with this nut, you REALLY hate cops.

        1. How can he be a nut, John? Tulpa and Thomas Szaz assure me that mental illness is a myth.

          1. I don’t remember assuring you of that.

            1. That’s because you’re crazy, and don’t even remember what crazy shit you say.

              Hell, if I read back to you some of the posts you’ve made here, you’d probably commit yourself.

              —-

              Did you hear of the shake-up at The X over the Pittsburgh Tactical AR giveaway and a DJ?

              Pretty boring stuff, but here’s the info if you’re interested.

            2. Yes, you did, because you were trolling under a different name on that thread, and you claimed that, as well as “Medicine is not art.”, and two other docs were on that thread, Anacreon and Ice Nine. Ice Nine skewered you, and I counter exampled you to death. Heller was on that thread and we were discussing how much of medicine is “Art v. Applied Science”. Google and Jandex are FAILing me at the moment to find the exact thread.

              The patient Anacreon referenced was a decompensated schizo who tore out his eyeballs and had extreme delusion, both endogenous and exogenous.

              1. Dude, I was just reading Galen and Hippocrates for a class. We were debating what you’re talking about, and the relative merits of empiricism and dogmatism in medicine.

                1. Galen

                  Galen was a brilliant physician, and something of a God-complex packing braggart. Galen was indispensable for medicine, as he concretely established a few precepts still used today:

                  1) Hemostasis [he pioneered the use of catgut for sutures (still used to this day)and used raw meat as a compress to stop hemorrage]

                  2) The use of honey (used today as well, called “medical grade honey”) to isolate WX and pressure sores. He also pioneered surgical debridment.

                  3) He used mouldy bread to TX infection, and postulated some of the theories later known as, “The Inflammation Response”

                  That said, Galen also believed wholly in The Humours school of medicine, as did Hippocrates and Asclepius.

                  1. He seemed to have it in for the dogmatics, but at the time the only medical successes came from seeing what worked personally and for colleagues. Hell, without microscopes or germ theory the concept of empirical medicine is laughable.

                    So, I’m not surprised that the methods of that time are still in use today. What works, works regardless of whether you understand why on a molecular level.

                    1. Hell, without microscopes or germ theory the concept of empirical medicine is laughable.

                      It is no coincidence that the most incredible breakthroughs in medicine has been in the last 200 years. The giants of medicine, Avicenna, Leeuwehook (microscopy), Lister, PASTEUR! (my hero), Fallot, and even Nostradamus (a celebrated physician is his own right, as he pioneered aspects of discrete pharmacology), and Jenner, yet ALL of these men still adhered to the dogma of the time. Even Dr. Groovy still adheres to some timeless dogmatism in his own practice.-)))

                      Dogmatism is not without merit, and forms the basis of medical ethics.

                    2. Yeah, I think situation should dictate how you think about symptoms, prognosis, and treatment. Most docs are smart enough to figure it out.

                      If you’re a university researcher then using collective experience isn’t enough because it doesn’t explain the source of disease. On the other hand, for a GP to know every mechanism to the molecular level for every disease he will see is unrealistic and will result in deaths. If the GP has seen the same set of symptoms 100 times then he can automatically, and with good cause, advocate for a course of treatment without pulling out the beakers and shit.

                    3. Correct, cap l, which is precisely why I became a specialist. There is NO WAY I can ever know it all, and ANY physician that thinks he or she does needs to be culled from the herd immediately, as that’s when people die, and my main criticism of employing strictly “evidence-based” (cookie cutter) medicine.

                      What you said in a nutshell is the balance of art and science in medicine. You cannot have one without the other.

                    4. If the GP has seen the same set of symptoms 100 times then he can automatically, and with good cause, advocate for a course of treatment without pulling out the beakers and shit.

                      Science isn’t only about beakers and labs and fundamental explanations, it’s about testing falsifiable propositions in general. That GP is engaged in science when observing the first 100 patients.

                      Nothing you’re describing is beyond the capability of a sufficiently thoroughly trained machine learning algorithm. There really is no inherent need for a human doctor beyond making the patient comfortable and providing an extra element of safety in medical procedures; at this point in time, we just don’t have the technology and confidence in our algorithms to hand over the car keys. (not a dig at doctors specifically– everything I do could be done by sufficiently advanced machines too)

                      Far too often people claim something is “art rather than science” to avoid having to rigorously justify their actions and to stave off objective evaluation of their performance.

                    5. Nothing you’re describing is beyond the capability of a sufficiently thoroughly trained machine learning algorithm.

                      WebMD disagrees (and so do I).

                      There really is no inherent need for a human doctor beyond making the patient comfortable and providing an extra element of safety in medical procedures

                      1) A Da Vinci robot is incapable of doing any surgery without a prime mover (me, and I am qualified to use one). Try and program a Da Vinci to do a C-Sec and deliver a baby without killing the baby.

                      2) Try and sue a machine for malpractice and failure to time/TX/correctly DX.

                      It’s an art and a science, Tulpa. Ever heard of plastic surgery? Boob jobs? Any aspect of medicine that requires a knowledge of esthetics and aesthetics? Pain management? I can do this all morning…

                      Epi’s right: You’re a total moron when you comment out of your field of expertise, O Parser of Addresses.

                    6. What GBN was describing could be performed by a simple decision tree (machine learning is one of my areas of expertise), which is what I assume WebMD uses for their symptom checker. True, for more obscure symptom-diagnosis groupings it would require a lot of training to make it work, but that’s not what we’re talking about. If you’re saying WebMD disagrees because they have a disclaimer saying you should always consult a doctor, well no shit. Your fave word these days is liability, and that’s certainly the magic word here.

                      And yes, I know we’re not there yet with robotic surgery. A big issue is the reaction time of electronic vs. human brains. With current tech and algos, by the time the robot surgeon realizes it’s slicing off the baby’s head it’s already done it. It’s not an inherent issue with robotic surgery, just a result of the human brain having a billion year head start.

                    7. What GBN was describing could be performed by a simple decision tree

                      Your DRG is “flu-like symptoms”. Have fun with that.

                      Your fave word these days is liability

                      Has been for the last 12 years I’ve been doctor. 16 if count med school. You pay 110K USD in liability insurance and non-compliant, lying patients it will quickly become your favourite word too.

                      It’s not an inherent issue with robotic surgery, just a result of the human brain having a billion year head start.

                      The Da Vinci is more precise than I am (they don’t get tired), but I am more accurate, Tulpa. (I assume you know the difference). My hands have more degrees of freedom.

                      You cannot program concern for the patient. Full. Stop.

                    8. Your DRG is “flu-like symptoms”. Have fun with that.

                      So you’re thumbing the scales against the machine, eh? A well-trained DT isn’t going to do any worse than a GP with that; I’d imagine the GP’s first question would be “which flu like symptoms”, just like the DT.

                    9. “which flu like symptoms”

                      Very useful.(snark) Maybe you should stick to correcting Epi on parsing addresses.

                      Of course that will be the first question!!! Now, what’s question numero dos? Sexual HX? Drug use? Appraising hygiene? Assuming, of course, the patient isn’t lying…

                      I’ll stick with the GP, since they can SEE what other factors may be in play; if the GP wants to use WebMD as an educational tool and adjunct, fine.

                      Human docs, nurses, dentists, veterinarians and a host of other professions are irreplaceable.

                    10. You cannot program concern for the patient. Full. Stop.

                      Just like you can’t program a car to care about the driver, yet the ABS does its damnedest to keep the driver from skidding uncontrollably over the edge of that icy cliff.

                    11. yet the ABS does its damnedest to keep the driver from skidding uncontrollably over the edge of that icy cliff.

                      False equivalence. Requires a prime mover to initiate in this case.

                      I assure you, you don’t want a DT, cookie cutter, AI Robo-Doc that doesn’t take into account your emotional as well as rational concerns, medically speaking.

                    12. Whatever. Every doctor who’s ever given me a DRE seemed to give no considerations to my emotional feelings on the subject. I’d almost rather have a robot arm do it, at least that would be honest.

                    13. I’d almost rather have a robot arm do it, at least that would be honest.

                      The robot finger:

                      A) Won’t care if it is hurting you, if it can even palpate a prostate gland and differentiate a healthy one from a mushy one.

                      B) Doesn’t feel PX, so probably won’t stop even if you scream, “OW!!!!” In fact, it may even taze you to get you to…wait for it…stop resisting.

                      When Robo-Docs and Robo-Digits can feel PX, then they can work on me.

                      Don’t forget, Tulpa, I’m a patient also.

              2. Medicine is much more art than science. Nothing is wrong with that with the exception that way too many “educated” people believe it is SCIENCE with a religious faith in such things. Fucking superstitious morons think they can achieve grace through diet, exercise and faithfully taking the right ‘scripts.

                1. Depends.

                  If you define an MD doing pure research as “medicine” then that would definitely be more the science side of things.

              3. I don’t recall the medicine vs art thing; sounds like it needs context. I don’t post under other names (well, except for variations on Tulpa which was scurrilously taken from me, leaving me a wanderer in a nominative land not my own).

                I do remember the eyeball gouger story; IIRC the eyeballs were not yet torn out, he just claimed to want to tear them out. IIRC we were arguing about whether an adult patient should ever be forced to undergo treatment against their will, not the existence of mental illness. My contention was that involuntary treatment is too ripe for abuse by the would-be treater.

                1. I don’t post under other names

                  You did on this one as the name you used had your Gmail in it (this was shortly before your handle went violet). There are two posts in it where I refer to you by name (and I am trying REALLY hard to find that thread).

                  I may be retarded sometimes, and may skew “Yokeltarian” HURR DURR!, but I have an excellent memory. I just don’t pull a Mary and bookmark every post.

                  leaving me a wanderer in a nominative land not my own

                  You never did check your rocketmail account, did you? (And I sent you an email telling you how to get back your old name, without so much as a “Thank You”, I might add. Jerk.)

                  My contention was that involuntary treatment is too ripe for abuse by the would-be treater.

                  There is some principled objection here, and I can counter that with one word:

                  Liability.

                  In fact, I may need to roll out The Groovy Iron Laws of Medicine now, just to see if you can break them.

                  1. ohhhhhh yeah. I was trying to switch names at one point. But I wasn’t sockpuppeting as I used the same email so everyone knew it was me. It was some obscure Renaissance era British scientist’s name, but didn’t turn out to have the same cachet.

                    Re: the ingratitude, you remember the story of Jesus and the leopards. Try as I might I just can’t change my spots. All putting me on a guilt trip will accomplish is sending me deeper into my weekend Dimetapp and Reese’s Pieces binge.

    2. If he had confined himself to only murdering cops, not their daughters and future son-in-laws, I think he’d have a lot more sympathy. 1) A lot of people really hate cops, 2) a lot of people are really stupid.

      1. Yes. There is a big old overlap in the ven diagram of cop haters and stupid people.

      2. The future SiL was a cop, no?

    3. If this were a movie, then the murder charges would a frame-up and this guy would be on the lam trying to clear his name and expose the corporate/government/mafia conspiracy he came across while pursuing a case which the chief tried to call him off of.

      1. To find him, logically, we only need to look for the hot chick who believes in him and is sheltering him, and who is herself a target of the Conspiracy.

  13. Anybody see the GeeDub paintings?

    They made me sad.

    The Obama administration is making me long for the idiot in chief. He was a fuck up, but dammit if he didn’t seem as dangerously ambitious.

    1. Yes, they are excellent pieces, and The Shrub does have demonstrable artistic talent. He’s no Fredric Remington or NC or Andrew Wyeth, but I liked them.

      1. Hey DOc serious Q

        My friend’s dad has Stage 4 Glioblastoma. he’s in his late 50s. He’s been given 14 months. But they are going to try fight it. Chemo and Radiation. It’s in an inoperable area.
        What do you know of this disease?

        1. Doc’s a capitalist. He’ll answer your question when the check clears.

          1. I sent him $1000 in Canadian pennies

            1. I’ll link the wikipedia page for half that.

              You won’t find a better deal.

              And excuse my gallow’s humor. I’ve been through the cancer battle with a few relatives and now my dad; humor keeps everybody sane. I hope your friend’s dad does well.

              1. What’s your dad fighting?

                1. Lung cancer.

                  It went to his brain.

                  They took a lung, and a chunk of his brain and yet he lives. According to their prognosis he should be dead, but he just keeps going. To put it in perspective, last year at this time, they wanted to put him in hospice care and pursue palliative measures.

                  I just try to help him out as much as possible, and spend as much time with him as I can; it’s all you can do, really.

                  1. Best of luck

                  2. According to their prognosis he should be dead, but he just keeps going.

                    Yet, His Pestilency says Drs. should never take into account the confounding intangible: The will to live. I never discount this factor, as I have been proven wrong before. Primus Maximus had an exceptional will to live, and was a very stubborn man. He wanted to leave on his terms, and he did.

                    I wish you all the best, cap l.-)

                    1. Thanks guys.

                      Yeah, groov, he’s a wiry, stubborn motherfucker; I don’t think he’ll let a little thing like cancer get in the way of his drinking.

                    2. Yet, His Pestilency says Drs. should never take into account the confounding intangible: The will to live.

                      confirmation bias. I’ve known plenty of people (including some very closely related to me, to put it mildly) faced with a life threatening illness who very badly wanted to live and didn’t. We all want to believe it’s a simple matter of will, both because it makes the death of others less harsh (“s/he knew it was time to go”, “s/he was at peace”, etc) AND it makes our own upcoming transition to worm chow seem less likely.

                      Tulpa doesn’t have iron laws, but if he did, #1 would be “be especially skeptical of what you want to believe”.

                      If the will to live were a confounding factor you could produce a statistical analysis to back up that status. I haven’t seen any.

                    3. confirmation bias

                      Hit your thumb with a hammer and prove to me your PX intensity.

                      (Spoiler Alert: You can’t.)

                      As to the rest of your comment, all I need, besides my six months of being an active alternate house physician at a group of nursing homes, as well as my experience a CNA in nursing home & hospice, you’re wrong. As for discrete studies, when I feel like breaking HIPAA to you, I’ll let you see them.

                      Primus Maximus is all I need, as I was his alternate MPOA and worked intimately with his PCP during his declining health and EOL. Hardest thing I ever have had to do was execute his final wishes, and I knew his HX backwards, forwards, slantways, and sideways. The third hardest thing I have had to do was put my foot down, pull Doctor Card, and get him to change Drs., as he refused even with Mama Maximus begging him to do so as his PCP at the time was demonstrably FAILing at his job. That bought him quite a few more productive years, Tulpa, and I apologize for none of it.

                      I’ve been there Tulpa, and medicine doesn’t always have guarantees that comport to a Cartesian plane.

                    4. So a bunch of things you can’t describe and one data point in which you were heavily emotionally invested? Just because you can abbreviate a word by putting X after the first letter doesn’t mean you’re immune to confirmation bias.

                    5. Just because you can abbreviate a word by putting X after the first letter doesn’t mean you’re immune to confirmation bias.

                      This is true, and clinical detachment is designed to prevent emotion overcoming sound judgement, but it’s not always that simple. I was specifically named the alternate MPOA for this reason, Tulpa. I can stand back and look at both the emotional and the clinical and render a DX accordingly, as these are inseparable, just like the mind and the body.

                      One case that comes to mind was a 76 y/o female, who by all labs, HX, and current health was very vibrant with no appetite problems. Her ticker was good. She simply had mobility problems (she could walk with assist) and incontinence.

                      When her incontinence got to the point where she was going to the bathroom 15 times in a night (no cystitis or infection present), and her mobility declined, she gave up. She said to me, “I can’t do this anymore. If I can’t go to the bathroom like a normal person, I don’t want to live.”

                      Three weeks after, depression set in, and she died (and she ate well even up to that day, so no malnutrition or dehydration). Family requested an autopsy and the COD was heart failure, but the chemistry didn’t support this, as the heart tissue was healthy.

                      It is possible to die of a broken heart, Tulpa.

                    6. ^^This was when I was active alternate dr. at one of the nursing homes^^

                      And still doing surgeries on top of this. Longest six months of my life.

              2. Which gallow’s humor are we supposed to excuse?

        2. My friend’s dad has Stage 4 Glioblastoma. he’s in his late 50s.

          My condolences, I wish him the best.-(((

          He’s been given 14 months.

          Without knowing his HX, that is about the average. Giving odds on cancers is tenuous, as I predicted that Chavez would be dead by now, yet he perseveres, if the Euro-rags are to be believed.

          But they are going to try fight it.

          Never quit. Never, never, never quit. Until it’s time to quit.

          Chemo and Radiation. It’s in an inoperable area.

          This is not good. Surgery is the primary TX and weapon against Glioblastoma. Chemo and Radiation can be effective, but a Stage IV multiforme is really difficult to TX. It gets it to Stage IV because there are very few S/S prior.

          What do you know of this disease?

          In short, don’t get it. Younger patients have a higher survival rate, but older patients are usually DX’d earlier, looking for something else.

          1. I’ll try not to get it. This guy is neither a smoker nor a drinker.
            I’ve seen 40 year olds healthy as can be, doing everything else, die by getting hit by a bus.
            I’ve seen 80 year old smokers.
            I’ve seen 90 year old alcoholics.

            I think that when it’s your time, it’s your time.

            1. I think that when it’s your time, it’s your time.

              I agree, and this is the reason I believe in God. I’ve seen too many things and read too many confounding medical case studies where science simply cannot explain away exceptional resolutions.

              Quote the Groovy Iron Law:

              “Nature v. Nuture: Always Answered, yet Continually Confounded”

              In fact, inspired by RC Dean and a few of the commentariat, I am about to roll out The Groovy Medical Iron Law. Just needs a few tweaks.-)

              1. I’d be interested in hearing more about your theology. A year ago tonight I developed back pain that woke me up in bed so severe I couldn’t move, and had my wife call 911. Five paramedics had to carry me to the ambulance, and films in the ED showed four broken lumbar vertebrae with no history of trauma. You probably already know where this is headed, GM. On Valentine’s Day I got the confirmed diagnosis of Multiple Myeloma.

                I’m only 52, and this cancer normally strikes people in their 70s and 80s, so we’re not sure how to figure my life expectancy with this incurable disease. Some pretty impressive new chemo has been approved in the last year, though, so there is hope.

                But after having been non-religious since a teen, facing mortality is leading me to investigate spirituality and devotion. I’ve been hearing the tales of some other colleagues and am fascinated by physicians’ take on God. Your post here intrigues me.

                1. On Valentine’s Day I got the confirmed diagnosis of Multiple Myeloma.

                  I read the post where you first revealed this, and my heart sunk. I wish I could help; I wrote my med school application essay on oncology and blood sarcomas (I originally wanted to be an oncologist).

                  Some pretty impressive new chemo has been approved in the last year, though, so there is hope.

                  Using gold salts, in a anti-neoplastic call (no joke) QFT has shown some remarkable properties, as per MD Anderson.

                  As far as theology per se, I don’t subscribe to a particular religion; the closest would be Catholicism, but I have major problems with “Social Justice” doctrine (Altruism).

                  It’s not hard really, just a simple binary: You either believe, or you don’t. When you get into Calvanism, Judaism, and other established faiths, then the knives come out. I prefer to keep it simple.

                  1) I am accountable to a
                  Higher Authority and I will answer for my life’s choices eventually.

                  2) “The Mirror Test”: If I cannot look at myself in the mirror before or after I have done a particular act or procedure, then I have a very high confidence interval I shouldn’t have done it.

                  1. Good stuff, thanks. I do appreciate your Mirror Test.

                    Tomorrow I’m being taken to an event by one of our docs who is “born again,” so I will see firsthand what that is like. She swears the prayers will be palpable to me.

        3. As an agnostic I would highly recommend prayer. IIRC, there is substantial scientific evidence of its efficacy.

          1. This is true, and I have read numerous studies in JAMA, NEJM, Lancet, and Annals of Medicine that show prayer has demonstrable benefits:

            1) Faster healing time and disease resolution.

            2) Lower incidence of adverse effects and complications.

            3) Less PX and less reliance on PX medications.

            4) Less time in convalescence.

            Note that in all of the studies, there was no specific endorsement of any deity or specific modes of prayer. What was shown was, regardless of religious belief, those who prayed daily did display the aformentioned benefits and was shown to be fairly equitable in distribution across the aggregate.

            1. Yep, the mind is a wonderful thing.

              1. God agrees.-)

            2. I prefer the XX medications.

              1. I prefer the XX medications.

                You forgot an “X”; booze can be medicinal, and I am sure you OD on pr0n as often as possible.-))))

                Pasty, translucent Mathletics don’t actually get real wimminz. At least willing ones,-)

                1. That used to be the case, until I started using Dimetapp as cologne and hanging out at Denny’s instead of the bars.

          2. I’ve looked into this before, and there are a lot of contradictory studies on this. Most of the studies* have a small number of participants, and sloppy methodology. So, you could take either stance and find evidence to back your claim.

            What is known though, is that placebo works to a certain degree and prayer could be another form.

            *I’d look some up for you but it’s late and I’m too tired to do anything that takes thought (or copy and pasting)

            1. I’d imagine it is kind of hard to measure prayer, or set up a truly random control group for a study like that. You’d pretty much have to tell very sick, religious people not to pray for recovery.

              Plus religious people generally believe that prayer by others can also have an effect on one’s recovery. So Giuseppe is in the control group and promises not to pray for his own recovery, but then his third cousin twice removed in Genoa starts pumping out the rosaries on First Saturday and the whole study is contaminated. You can always count on the Lord to fuck your shit up, ask the Babel guys.

          3. No causation vs correlation issues there, no sir.

          4. IIRC, there is substantial scientific evidence of its efficacy.

            IIRC, you are a fool, and a TEAM RED boot licker.

            1. You’re a vicious little cunt, Audrey, I’ll give you that. But I’ve got no time for grassers.

  14. Dear Diary: ‘An enfeebled woman wears the Crowne of Englande, yet her son failes to murder her and seize it!’

    1. I like this one:

      Perhaps if these churlishe Windsor princes did not spent so much tyme in makinge speches and cavorting with nude ladyes, they could learne a thynge or two about usurping. By the tyme I was half Charles’ age I had slayne near fiftye men. Did I kill the princes in the Tower, thou ask? Perhaps. Honystly, I slew so many I do not remember. But, I assure you, I didst not call them fat.

  15. Sounds like some crazy smack to me dude. Wow.

    http://www.GoinAnon.da.bz

  16. OK, seems to have wondered OT far enough:
    “Laotians top growers of pot on Calif. farmland”
    I’m sure some dumbass has reason to gripe about this, but it’ll have to come from the sump ballast on the TP ship.
    These folks have figured out how to grow the stuff and mostly hide it. Worthy of applause IMO.
    http://www.sfgate.com/news/cri…..265588.php

    1. What do you need a thirty round assault clip for? To protect yer pot, that’s what:

      Those in the community who are against growing marijuana are afraid to speak up, because the growers often have guns, he said. Bosavanh, who is also a pastor, says people come to him instead to complain.

      1. “Those in the community who are against growing marijuana are afraid to speak up,”

        Speak up? What does that mean? Why would you “speak up” about someone growing a crop?
        Or does this really mean those who support prohibition?
        If so, flick off, slaver!

      2. If only there were someone with guns who they could call to fight the pot growers.

    2. Don’t give them too much credit, they probably pee in their own bongwater.

      1. Is that where all this originates from, Tulpa? Immigrant-pee-tainted bongwater? I feel for you, I really do.

  17. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013…..or-murder/

    The baboons have apparently shot three people now.

  18. http://www.redstate.com/2013/0…..francisco/

    Anyone else hear about the attempted occupy wall street false flag operation?

  19. #SXonSPEED Do it in the dirt.

    1. kinky?

    1. Those YAfL chicks are great.

      1. What’s a yafl. Young arrogant floridians?

        1. Young Americans for Liberty, I assume. I wonder if they’d be interested in a joint event with LAOL.

          1. I like Young Arrogant Floridians better; it’s edgier.

            But I suppose the liberty thing is more likely.

            1. I prefer Young Interested Floridians for the Future, myself.

              1. woof woof

  20. Netflix “House of Cards” is good, but it telegraphs the next play worse than Philip Rivers.

  21. “…the Nobel Prize confers on an individual an authority which in economics no man ought to possess. This does not matter in the natural sciences. Here the influence exercised by an individual is chiefly an influence on his fellow experts; and they will soon cut him down to size if he exceeds his competence. But the influence of the economist that mainly matters is an influence over laymen: politicians, journalists, civil servants and the public generally. There is no reason why a man who has made a distinctive contribution to economic science should be omnicompetent on all problems of society – as the press tends to treat him till in the end he may himself be persuaded to believe. One is even made to feel it a public duty to pronounce on problems to which one may not have devoted special attention. I am not sure that it is desirable to strengthen the influence of a few individual economists by such a ceremonial and eye-catching recognition of achievements, perhaps of the distant past.

    “I am therefore almost inclined to suggest that you require from your laureates an oath of humility, a sort of hippocratic oath, never to exceed in public pronouncements the limits of their competence. Or you ought at least, on confering the prize, remind the recipient of the sage counsel of one of the great men in our subject, Alfred Marshall, who wrote: ‘Students of social science, must fear popular approval: Evil is with them when all men speak well of them.'”

    — FA Hayek, 1974

  22. Ron Paul cares about property rights so much he wants the UN to steal domain names for him.

  23. You must throw one hellavu cocktail party, Brian to get the NYT editors to mend their ways and value an anti-statist opinion enough to print it.

  24. Wow! ANOTHER grossly inaccurate and fact-free ‘pro-libertarian’ article by Doherty.

    Where does he get that Libertarian Gary Johnson got those votes from unhappy GOP? The LIO has already released preliminary findings of a study where they show that isn’t so. And any Libertarian in the field knows that’s true.

    The LIO will have its full findings out in Summer. Keep abreast at their FB at http://www.libertarianinternational.org

    Doherty does everything he can to attack libertarian activists and pretend the conservatives have something to do with it.

    1. So, what you’re saying is you didn’t actually read the article nor have you read anything else Brian has written.

      1. Pretty much.

  25. If you think Frank`s story is terrific,, last pay-cheque my friend’s brother basically also made $4230 just sitting there a ninteen hour week from there apartment and the’re buddy’s half-sister`s neighbour done this for 3 months and worked and got paid more than $4230 in there spare time on their mac. applie the information from this address, http://www.FLY38.COM

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.