Media

Rolling Stone's Sad "5 Economic Reforms Millennials Should Be Fighting For"

|

All of Twitter is a-buzzing like a hummingbird's wings about a new, incredibly stupid article in Rolling Stone by Jesse A. Myerson.

Titled "Five Economic Reforms Millennials Should be Fighting For," here's the list for those of you in a hurry (the explanatory chatter accompanying each entry doesn't make them any more convincing).

1. Guaranteed Work for Everybody

2. Social Security for All

3. Take Back The Land

4. Make Everything Owned by Everybody

5. A Public Bank in Every State

The only thing missing is a call for a light beer that really does taste great and is less filling. Read the whole piece here but as I noted, the real drama with Myerson is happening on Twitter, where's he's been mocked and supported relentlessly since the article, which went live on January 3, was tweeted around by National Review's Charles Cooke.

Like a character in a bad Tom Petty song, Myerson's not backing down and is in fact reveling in the attention, tweeting things such as:

"Drinking scotch. Blocking trolls. It's a merry life."

"Poor me. Writing for Rolling Stone and getting hated on by dunces. Man, I've really let myself go."

"What they don't seem to understand is: I really am very nice and don't want gulags."

"If I have to answer for Soviet gulags, these market/capital twits have to answer for climate collapse, the greatest genocide in history."

That last tweet gives you a sense of Myerson's quality of thought (the "#FULLCOMMUNISM" in his Twitter bio gives you a sense of his political commitments). There's even a #StandWithJesse hashtag, which seems to be equal parts attaboys and flames (e.g. "#StandWithJesse is an ableist hashtag born out of able bodied privilege and contempt for those who can't stand!").

But to me, this episode is not about an ahistorical and already-been-tried-and-failed-countless-times policy agenda. It's about the long decline of Rolling Stone.

Rolling Stone was borne out of Jann Wenner's love of music in a time (late 1960s) when music was simply more important in the nation's cultural life. Youth music—encompassing everything from nostalgic pop (think Mamas and Papas, Sha Na Na) to alt-country (Byrds, Flying Burrito Brothers), to proto-punk (Stooges, MC5)—was never apolitical per se but even the most tendentious protest songs were less about any specific greivance and more about a generational shift.

The gap between Americans raised before World War II and after was huge in a way that's difficult to recall for those of us who came of age after the '60s. Greatest Generation parents who might have grown up without on-demand indoor plumbing and survived the Depression and fighting in Europe, the Pacific, North Africa, and Korea came from a different planet than the one on which they raised their kids. To their credit, they bequeathed to the baby boomers a world that was still full of major problems but one that was much richer and full of opportunites. And to their credit, the boomers (of which I'm a very late example, having been born in 1963) readily went about using new opportunities and freedoms (expressive, sexual, educational, economic) to build the world they wanted to live in.

In the late '60s and a good chunk of the '70s, youth-oriented pop music was central to that project. Whatever you might think of the Beatles' music, their very existence—and their constant self-recreations—made everything seem possible. They were far from alone as pop music maguses, too.

Simply by talking with major pop figures, Rolling Stone could be a vital and compelling magazine because it served as something like a boomer conversation pit. Over time, however, music stopped playing the same sort of vital role in generational conversations—don't get me wrong, it's still a part of it all. But as the mainstream in every area of life splintered and recombined into a million different subspecies, no single form of cultural expression matters so much to so many people anymore.

That's a good thing for the culture and the country (and the planet, really), but Rolling Stone has been looking for a replacement core identity for decades now. The magazine that once published New Journalism masterpieces about David Cassidy and stardom, Patty Hearst's rescuers, and "Charlie Simpson's Apocalypse" had trouble figuring out how to deal with a world in which pop and movie stars were less interesting than ever (and more disciplined in terms of talking with the press) and in which men and women of good faith might actually disagree over complicated aesthetic and ideological matters. There has been a lot of good writing and reporting over the years, but there's no question, I think, that the magazine is chasing trends and insights rather than creating them.

A big part of the reason is this: Rather than represent a wide-ranging set of viewpoints, Rolling Stone increasingly has opted for a sort of standard Democratic liberalism, with a heavy dose of guilt that comes from becoming rich and thus feeling inauthentically committed to '60s ideals of radical chic. When it comes to things like drugs, the magazine is far more likely to write uncritical, hysterical "new drug of choice" fables (such as this 2003 gem about meth as a "Plague in the Heartland") than it is to push back against the anti-drug animus that is every bit as much a part of the Democratic Party ethos as it is of the Republican one. The mag is more likely to publish mushy articles about environmentalism and autism by Robert Kennedy Jr. than stage a debate that might shed actually light on a given topic. For years now, its political coverage has been dominated by writers such as Matt Taibbi, who operates as a sort of cleaned-up version of his former eXile self. That is, he's a lefty's lefty who drops enough f-bombs to add a cool quotient to a magazine whose politics are, like a Capt. Beefheart record, safe as milk. Someone like the self-consciously right-wing P.J. O'Rourke, whose pieces from hellholes around the world were filled with great reporting and anti-hippie jibes, need not apply. As Brian Doherty has noted here, the magazine never seems to miss an opportunity to badger Bob Dylan into expressing total agreement with some sort of liberal mainstream. Bob, don't you think Obama is the best? Bob, don't you agree that global warming is the worst thing around?

Is it really so hard for Rolling Stone to realize that Dylan—the mag's ultimate hero—is a far more interesting character precisely because he's heterodox (if not stark raving mad)? God, the mag should have built an entire special issue around this bizarre admission in Dylan's memoir, Chronicles, Vol. 1:

There was no point in arguing with Dave [Van Ronk], not intellectually anyway. I had a primitive way of looking at things and I liked country fair politics. My favorite politician was Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, who reminded me of Tom Mix, and there wasn't any way to explain that to anybody.

Instead you get bullshit bits about what's on Barack Obama's iPod and a 2012 Douglas Brinkley Q&A with Obama that takes butt-kissing into a whole new dimension not yet mappable by science. And a sad-sack story about "Five Economic Reforms Millennials Should Be Fighting For" that even Raul Castro would have been embarrassed to publish.

In a world in which pop culture—especially youth-oriented pop culture—allows a thousand flowers to bloom in a way that was unimaginable even 40 years ago, Rolling Stone can no longer get by simply by talking with Patti Smith or John Lennon or Bob Dylan for 25,000 words at a time. It might have reinvented itself as a clubhouse where people who love music or movies or whatever could get together to argue over politics, economics, and policy. That could indeed be interesting, especially in a world where large chunks of young Americans are going right, left, and especially libertarian. Just as there is no longer one dominant mode of music, there is no longer one dominant mode of politics.

But the people at the helm of Rolling Stone cannot seemingly even acknowledge that anyone who might disagree with them on, say, the effects of minimum wage laws on the poor, is worth a second thought. All they can do, out of a sense of liberal guilt, is publish radical calls to arm that they must know are ridiculous. Sadly, a magazine that was once required reading for anyone who wanted to know what the younger generation cared about is now a pedantic, insecure, and ultimately ineffective tool of Democratic Party groupthink.

NEXT: Eyewitnesses Say the Iraqi Government Has Lost Control of Fallujah

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. The only good thing Rolling Stone ever did was employ Hunter S. Thompson.

    1. PJ O’Rourke?

      1. Thank you.

      2. The only time I ever even picked up Rolling Stone in the past twenty years was when PJ O’ Rourke had another one of those amazing “Holidays in Hell” dispatches from yet another war-torn part of the Third World. So interesting and hilarious at the same time, as he often found out much of his information on a bar stool. Totally recommend any of his several collections of these stories, be it Holidays in Hell, Give War a Chance, Eat the Rich, All the Trouble in the World, Peace Kills, or others.

        He lives in New Hampshire not far from my brother-in-law. About ten years ago this brother-in-law thought he had won a silent auction prize of dinner with PJ and was going to have me come out for the event (knowing what a fan I am, not just of the above, but all his National Lampoon work as well, such as the High School Yearbook parody that evolved into Animal House). Unfortunately, he didn’t read the bidding list correctly, and lost out, so I’ve still never met O’Rourke.

        1. I met him as an undergrad journalism student. Signed my copy of holidays in hell. He’s exactly what you would think he’s like. He’s in DC at Cato at the end of the month.

        2. Peace Kills is unbelievably entertaining. This is particularly true in the essay where he goes to an anti-war march and describes the type of people he sees.

    2. Their photo shoot of Jennifer Love Hewitt wasn’t bad.

      1. Not even Rolling Stone could fuck that up

    3. Putting Dr Hook on the cover was pretty cool.

    4. They get some decent pics of pop tartlets every once in a while.

  2. Kurt Loder must be embarrassed.

  3. but as I noted, the real drama with Myerson is happening on Twitter, where’s he’s been mocked and supported relentlessly since the article

    The scary part is that he has ANY supporters.

    Straight up Marxism. As I posted yesterday, this shit is dangerous. It’s pretty easy to convince people they deserve something for nothing. This is the standard formula that sparks Marxist revolutions.

    1. Marxist slogans from people that refuse to see where Marxism actually ended up.

      That is indeed a special kind of stupid.

      1. All the more reason to be excited about North Korea and Venezuela. The world needs a few bad examples lying around.

    2. And, as Nick says above, it’s all been tried before, and failed. This bozo isn’t just reinventing the wheel, he’s reinventing the square wheel.

      1. And the REALLY funny thing is that he keeps going on about how nobody has yet bothered to refute him point-by-point, and therefore has won the argument by default.

        As though the entire 20th century didn’t happen. It’s just bizarre.

  4. “What they don’t seem to understand is: I really am very nice and don’t want gulags.”

    Well, shit, ain’t that nice of him.

    1. Hey, this one guy doesn’t want gulags. Therefore, gulags will not be created. He can guarantee that.

    2. Let’s all pitch in and give him a cookie.

      1. A cookie isn’t what I had in mind.

        1. It’s a question of where you put it.

        2. Certainly doesn’t deserve a delicious cookie…

    3. That someone would have such a thought in the course of his internal monologue — much less would feel the need to publish it to his supporters — says much about that human being which should not be.

  5. 4. Make Everything Owned by Everybody

    5. A Public Bank in Every State

    …What’s the point of the latter if you have the former? Why would I need a bank when I own everything?

    1. Stop thinking and obey!

      /prog

    2. When I was in middle school (mid 80s) we learned about communism, basically what it was and how it worked, but I got the middle school version. Basically I got the impression that the intention was that people’s needs were met no matter what they did for work and whatever. If you needed something it was provided. Later on we learned about different currencies and we were told that the USSR uses rubles as currency. My hand went up. “If the USSR is communist and everyone gets what they need no matter what, why do they need money?” I didn’t get a very straight answer.

      1. Jeezuz you brought back some memories! I didn’t have the same reaction of asking the question, I just remember thinking it was typical adult pablum to ignore, that if adults couldn’t even reconcile those two tidbits of information, there was probably a whole lot more to the story, but since I didn’t really care about such a screwed up country, I wasn’t going to sweat it.

        I’ve lived most of my life like that, just ignoring babbling idiots, and it’s not always the best policy ….

      2. Late to the party here, but I wanted to add that my initial reaction was “Wait, Russians are poor. Why would we want to do what they do? It doesn’t seem to work.”

    3. He was just cribbing the Communist Manifesto, so there no actual analysis on the author’s part.

      1. Guaranteed Work for Everybody “8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.”

      2. Social Security for All – WTF? But I suppose free money is a pretty good selling point.

      3. Take Back The Land
      “1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.”

      4. Make Everything Owned by Everybody
      “2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.”

      5. A Public Bank in Every State “5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. “

      1. Why not just one big bank? Wouldn’t that be even more “efficient”?

        1. Why not just abolish the states?

          Wouldn’t that be even more “efficient”?

          1. Abolish countries! One World government! Even more efficient!

            1. Slow down Comrade, that’s phase 2.

          2. Abolish the states? Don’t be ridiculous. We need a place to hold meaningless elections with a single choice on the ballot. Come on folks, think faster.

        2. I honestly never saw “Take back the land” before, so I went to check that section out. It’s so confused I can’t find an actual idea to ridicule.

          The value of the land has nothing to do with my idle, remote landlord; it reflects the nearby parks and subways and shops, which I have access to thanks to the community and the public.

          Where to begin?

          1. I’d start by asking for his car keys and work my way up to getting him to sign off on the deed for his home. How committed is this guy?

  6. He’s just sure it’ll work this time.

    1. I would work if they just tried it once with a whole country.

      1. It.
        It would work.

        Nothing can get work out of me, of course.

        1. Oh heck no. The minute they pass a single one of these reforms I hop on the back of the cart and wait for the thing to run out of steam.

      2. Late 1918:
        …”Schumpeter said that at last Marxism would have a practical test. Weber replied that the result was likely to be catastrophic, because the Bolsheviks were so brutal. “That may well be,” Schumpeter said, “but it would be a good laboratory to test our theories.” “A laboratory heaped with human corpses!” said Weber”…
        McCraw, “Prophet of Innovation”.

        1. Yeah, but see, that wasn’t just one country. They also had to deal with East Germany, Czech-whatsit (you know, the rest of that), Poland, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Albania.

        2. Sounds like Trading Places

        3. It’s a shame that Weber died so early — both as an organizing personality and an ideologue, he would have been far more suitable to help shepherd the Weimar Republic towards classical liberalism and stability than the dominant Social Democrats.

      3. It would work if they would just give it 70 years.

  7. It would be redundant to mention that Millennials don’t read Rolling Stone.

    Of course, no one else does either.

    1. I don’t recall having a copy in my hand for over a decade now.

      1. I was about to buy Springsteen’s greatest songs issue but for some reason decided it was stupid to buy it.

        I bought a book on the history of Venice instead.

      2. I haven’t read Rolling Stone since they published that absolutely farcical “100 Greatest Guitarists” list circa 2003. Of course, I was also a sundry leftist college student back then.

        But what a pile of shit that list was! The titanic David Gilmour was ranked something like 73, while wankers like Jack White were ranked in the top ten. It was an obscenity, and the subject of many heated arguments lol.

    2. Seems to be part of the Baby Boom worldview. Something along the lines of “everything we did was so transcendent that we created new ideas and institutions that will last forever.”

      Failing to understand that they too, just like their parents, were products of their times and that most of what they created will fade away.

      1. Gillespie captured it: “The gap between Americans raised before World War II and after was huge in a way that’s difficult to recall for those of us who came of age after the ’60s. ”

        WW2 was unarguably the defining event of the 20th century. The changes it wrought in American culture were played out in the 60’s and my generation of boomers are the outcome of that discontinuity. There have been no significant discontinuities (9/11 is closest) that have forced the culture to change since then. So the changes since have been gradual rather than discrete step changes. Thus the generational separation between the Greatest and Boomer gens is really unique -for better and worse.

        Charles Manson – WTF – how is he relevant to anything?

        1. Good point. Although I’m not sure where the Charles Manson comment came from.

          1. The cover pic included with the article?

        2. I’m guessin’ the three covers shown in the article indicate a trend.

    3. Nick Gillespie does

  8. Now this is a good overnight thread.

    Nothing better than going off-topic while defenestrating commie turdsucks.

  9. 1. Guaranteed Work for Everybody

    2. Social Security for All

    3. Take Back The Land

    4. Make Everything Owned by Everybody

    5. A Public Bank in Every State

    1. Forced Labor

    2. No one will live that long anyways!

    3. Theft + Murder

    4. Make Everything Owned the Party

    5. All Banks are owned by the Party anyways!

    Welcome to the glorious future where the systems of absolute power are setup to attract the evil and power hungry but will be different this time because of good intentions!

    1. 1. Forced Labor

      No, there’s a shitty job there for you if you want it.

      But then he wants a guaranteed minimum income (SS for all), so what was the point of the job guarantee again?

  10. “Drinking scotch. Blocking trolls. It’s a merry life.”

    If those were the only two things he was doing, I could get on board with that.

    1. That asshole is drinking OUR scotch. I don’t have any scotch, why does he have scotch and I don’t. GIVE ME SOME FUCKING SCOTCH.

      1. 69. Guaranteed scotch for everyone.

  11. Five mental masturbations as printed on the Rolling Stones

    1. Guaranteed Work for Everybody

    2. Social Security for All

    3. Take Back The Land

    4. Make Everything Owned by Everybody

    5. A Public Bank in Every State

    1. Five mental masturbations as printed on the Rolling Stones
      1. Guaranteed Work for Everybody

      I can guarantee work right now.
      As much work as anybody cares to do.
      Come one, come all!

      Nobody said they’d pay you though.

      1. “We pretend to work, they pretend to pay us”.
        Joke from just about everyplace in the old Soviet Bloc

        1. I originally heard this as a standard joke from one of their postal carriers. “As long as they pretend to pay us, we pretend to work.”

          And the mail system there was the worst I’ve ever seen.

      2. Yeah, I’m thinking what if in Myerson’s new world, the powers that be think he’s more suited to be a sanitation worker than a professional wanker, will he be OK with that? Toil happily for the common good? Somehow, I doubt it.

    2. Sung to the tune “Imagine”

  12. The public bank thing is Ellen Brown’s influence. It’s neo-greenbacking and it’s as stupid and destructive now as it was then.

      1. Old Mex is Gary North?

  13. 4. Make Everything Owned by Everybody

    Fine, bitch, hand over the little hottie you’ve been scrogging lately. I really want to ass fuck something, and since I own her too, shut the fuck up and hand her over. I’ll give her back when I’m done, unless the line of guys behind me has other ideas. Oh, and my gay friends are thinking you’ve got a cute little pooper on ya. Give it up, bitch. They own it too.

    1. That is exactly what Marx envisioned when he spoke of supplanting the “bourgeois family” and prostitution with a dignified “community of women” in socialist society, but it was strictly heteronormative.

    2. I’m far more worried by the fact that you view women as property to be owned.

      1. Whoosh.

  14. North Korea provides a pretty good example of the end result of this moron’s policy prescriptions. In that sense at least, N.Korea is doing some good in the world.

    1. NK is run by the wrong Top. Men.

    2. Communism = North Korea.
      Libertarianism = Somalia.

      What are we to do?

      1. Libertarianism = Somalia.

        I love how the failure of a communist state disproves libertarianism.

        1. No. True. Scotsman.

        2. I used to think the Somalia thing was a joke. It isnt. In spite of all the times I have heard that absurdity I have yet to hear a defender of liberty point that out in a forum other than here.

  15. It should also be noted that, before the “FULLCOMMUNISM” hashtag in his Twitter bio, he also describes himself as an “uptown supremacist.” I really don’t know if this guy is legit or not.

    1. You expect a communist in 2014 to be clear-thinking and consistent?

  16. So Rolling Stone won’t mind when I grab a copy off of the rack w/o paying for it, right?

    1. Of course not, they’ve already been paid, right?

    2. Rolling Stone won’t mind, but the newsstand owner will.

  17. Rolling Stone increasingly has opted for a sort of standard Democratic liberalism

    Sooo…

    Is this a back handed admission that Democratic liberalism is full on socialism/communism?

    Why can’t we just call it socialism/communism?

    1. Well, since slavery is freedom, they believe in freedom, which isn’t socialism because that’s not freedom.

      Less, sarcastically, the Socialism brand is so tainted that they wouldn’t admit to it. And, too, they really think they can have their capitalists and eat them too.

      1. Socialism is only tainted in the minds of meanies. In the minds of the good and well-intentioned, it remains the ultimate goal.

    2. Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, ‘I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so’. Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:

      ‘While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.’

      George Orwell

      1. I don’t know that the 20th century produced a finer essay.

        1. http://orwell.ru/library/essay…..sh/e_polit

          For those who don’t know it

        2. Nor all the deserts of the Levant a more accurate prophet.

  18. 1. Guaranteed Work for Everybody

    Ok, got a gig for ya. On alternate Thursdays (but NEVER before noon) come on over and give me a blowjob. Since I see that according to #4, I own ya, looks like there won’t be any money involved, and it will certainly uplift your ‘social security’in that you’ll be comforted by the fact you have the job of coming over on alternate Thursdays to blow me. But this doesn’t mean you’re off the hook for the hottie. Bring her with ya, and she can come over on Tuesdays AND Thursdays, every week. Her gig can be doing my dishes.

    I’m diggin this communism schtick, It’s more fun than Marx imagined!

    1. Oddly enough, that’s really how they think of it. They don’t for a moment think (I should just stop there, really) that they’re as much everyone elses servants as much as everyone else is theirs.

      1. Funny, I was thinking that under Capitalism we’re all each others’ servants, except we can quit whenever we want and get paid however much we ask for (if the client’s willing).

        1. If we can quit as we choose, we’re not servants.

  19. That could indeed be interesting, especially in a world where large chunks of young Americans are going right, left, and especially libertarian.

    I think the point that millennials do not give one rat’s ass about Rolling Stone is missing from this article. The above quote is as close as Nick gets.

  20. Ever noticed how much landlords blow? They don’t really do anything to earn their money.

    Thank you 16 year old high school student. Don’t you have a class to get to?

    1. “Ever noticed how much landlords blow? They don’t really do anything to earn their money.”

      Yeah, the only fucking worked and saved their money (that provides capital through a mortgage) to INVEST in a fixed asset that provides stable income for the future so as to not to rely on the government to survive.

      Which I’m sure you’re on a path to becoming with that mentality- ward of the state. Asshole.

      1. Also, landlords never have to repair anything in their apartment buildings, fill out paperwork, or deal with bureaucrats.

        Truly, no landlord has to do any work.

        This also reminds me of Thomas Sowell’s article about his wife’s change of heart and move in a more libertarian direction. Apparently she was working as an attorney and was involved in various cases involving landlords. She initially had this ludicrous stereotype in her head about landlords being rich guys sitting around and counting their revenue. What she saw as that the majority of landlords were middle class people just like their tenants and were getting fucked by the government.

        Nothing makes a progressive into a libertarian like getting mugged by reality.

        1. “Also, landlords never have to repair anything in their apartment buildings, fill out paperwork, or deal with bureaucrats.”

          My father, an uneducated immigrant, has owned properties since the 1960s. In just, eight years he managed to start a business AND buy the building he was renting from.

          My parents spent 40 years servicing their debts and their buildings which are JOBS onto themselves. And yes, it also meant going to court to deal with deadbeats – of which we NEVER lost.

          My buddy bought his first building five years ago and drives 35 km at 3 in the morning to fix things. Comes back home and goes to work.

          That’s why the left are losers. They don’t grasp what it takes to succeed. All they see are the “results.”

        2. Landlords also never pay taxes.

          1. How about the mortgage? Residential and/or commercial buildings don’t fall out of the sky and into someone’s lap so they can then become landlords. They assume risk when they take out a mortgage or pay cash up front for the property.

          2. Yeah, one building costs $24 000 a year. More and more it makes less sense to hold them I’m beginning to think.

        3. My previous landlord delivered (and still delivers) pizza for extra money.

          The people who write this commie stuff grew up in comfortable suburban surroundings, never wanted for anything, and have very little real world experience.
          (Hi Obama!)

    2. If only. Right now I’m hoping my parents can divest their rental properties before I inherit them, because I really don’t want to deal with it. If I must, I’ll hire the meanest property manager I can find, and let all the tenants know I don’t give a goddamn about any of them.

  21. These five goals line up pretty well with the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto:

    http://laissez-fairerepublic.com/tenplanks.html

    Guaranteed Work for Everybody

    7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

    8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

    Social Security for All

    2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

    10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.

    Take Back The Land

    1. Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose.

    4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

    9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

    Make Everything Owned by Everybody

    3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

    6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state.

    A Public Bank in Every State

    5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

    1. Well done.

      (The ol’ C.M. is a pretty, um, interesting read.)

    2. Ever notice when you call them out for being communist or socialist they roll their eyes?

      They don’t even have the balls to fucking say it: I’m communist.

      Instead you get smart ass responses like this Myerson about drinking scotch and blocking trolls. Something tells me if Bertrand Russell offered a rebuttal he’d be considered a troll to this loser.

      1. Part of the M.O. of millennials is an instinctive aversion to direct tete-a-tete debate in favor of one-off riffing and feelgood sloganeering. Anything asking too-direct or difficult questions are seen as ‘mean spirited’ and ignored.

        Hell, Trotsky could tweet the kid and he’d still be like, “LOL right-wing trolls never stop. feel the burn.”

        1. Well they ARE the internet generation.

    3. The education part doesn’t have to cost so much. The former Warsaw Pact nations still have the best public schools in the world, and they run them on a shoestring, compared to the administration-heavy American system.

  22. “”If I have to answer for Soviet gulags, these market/capital twits have to answer for climate collapse, the greatest genocide in history”

    What?

    1. Teh Capitalsms kill the Dinosaurs?

      1. Didn’t you know? Nothing grows any more. The seas are dead.
        Why did you think all your neighbors starved in the 1970s?
        And there’s no sea ice.
        India is just… gone. Pakistan is partying like it’s 1699.
        Prince is suing to stop them from using his song.
        China is sending refugees to another solar system and making planets as much like Earth That Was as they can make them.
        Famines, plagues, the seas have dried up, armed interplanetary interventions by the United States, and oh yeah, nuclear winter.

        1. “And there’s no sea ice”
          Mid-summer in the southern hemisphere; the warmest time of the year:
          “The Chinese ship remained stuck several kilometers (miles) from the Russian icebreaker Akademik Shokalskiy, from which the passengers were rescued. The Russian ship has been immobile since Christmas Eve.”
          http://www.sfgate.com/news/sci…..113471.php

          1. Yep. I have been loving that one.

        2. Teh Capitalisms are 12 Monkeys?

    2. Given the environmental catastrophes caused by the Soviet Union (Chernobyl, draining of the Aral Sea) I’m pretty sure he has to answer for environmental damage far more than capitalists do.

      1. Let’s not forget China here.

        1. Ah, but it’s the fault of those dirty capitalists corrupting the peoples state! Before that it was a paradise of lotus flowers….

          1. Well, all those corpses probably did act as very effective fertilizer.

            1. I’m sure North Korea and Cuba are both ecological dream landscapes.

      2. Anybody here every see a Soviet city? The poisoning of Karabash? The oil stained harbor of Leningrad/St. Petersburg?

    3. WTF?

      Having been involved in the refining/petrochemical industry following the collapse of communism in Europe, I can assure you that environmental protection had much, much lower priority under communism than under capitalism. German had to scrap entire refineries and plants because it was impossible to bring the old East German facilities to anything approaching Western environmental standards. Then there was that whole Chernobyl thing. If Fukuyama had the communist Chernobyl design standard, it would have been a genuine disaster of the first order. And it took an earthquake as tsunami of biblical proportions to set of Fukuyama.

      And, anyway, China emits more GHG than the US.

      1. I spent time over there too, about the same time. Norilsk was the worst. Nothing but a smoke cloud inside a million acres of dead land. Made the worst part of Pittsburgh look like a lush Amish dairy farm.

  23. How about five things worth fighting for by millennials?

    1. An end to public sector pensions. 401(k)s for everyone.

    2. Allow people under 50 to opt out of Social Security.

    3. Open up the federal (non-national park) land to homesteading.

    4. Make the NSA get a warrant before spying on anyone.

    5. Legalize bitcoin and other alternative currencies.

    1. Wow, CE, you are on a roll!

      Keep it up, please!

    2. End the fucking war on drugs.

      1. Abolish affirmative action.

    3. 1. Tax the Internet.
      2. Repeal PPACA entirely. And Remove all requirements and references to Abortion and Right to Life from all Federal Laws. Re-write Income Tax law to allow 100% write off of all Medical Expenses.
      3. Cut every line item in Budget by 10%
      4. cut the salary of every elected and appointed federal official by 10%…eliminate ALL Congressional Pensions….transfer existing ballances back to the Social Security Accounts where they belong.
      5. Make the Banks spread that 800Billion Dollar Bailout $$ around…..or go to Bankruptcy Court.

  24. Poor me. Writing for Rolling Stone and getting hated on by dunces. Man, I’ve really let myself go

    I looked him up and he’s published two articles there. The first was in mid-October.

    He’s had two articles published on Rolling Stone’s website in three months. He’s getting mocked by actual career writers like Charles Cooke. The fact that he somehow thinks this qualifies as winning is very, very sad.

    1. These days, success is often measured in page hits.

    2. You didn’t expect him to actually work did you?

  25. Have we really come to a place where Marxism, communism, and other flat-out discredited retard ideas that are known to cause death and misery are in vogue again? Jesus fucking Christ. And people are proud to espouse their belief in murderous deadly ideologies.

    1. Epi, he’s a nice guy, you troll. How do you intend to answer for the climate change you caused, also known as The Greatest Genocide of All?

      1. We are terraforming this backwater planet for the New Race.
        All hail the Fithp!
        And stop telling them they look like baby elephants.

      2. I’m really more concerned about whether I want the Saints or the Eagles to win. I think I’m leaning toward the Eagles.

        1. I’m a born and raised Saints fan but I don’t see them winning on the road in the cold against a decent team.

          1. yeah but the Eagles aren’t that good.

            1. Yeah, but you gotta love Joe Walsh’s solo career

        2. Doesn’t matter. In the end, all will fall before the Broncos

    2. He doesn’t WANT gulags, Epi! Jesus Fucking Christ – he’s OK!

    3. Hey man, it’s edgy and bold! Notice how he repeatedly uses the word ‘blows’ in the article. Like “bankers blow”, “landlords blow”. He’s obviously trying very hard to appear hip and anti-establishment.

      1. Nothing says ‘anti-establishment’ like agitating in favor of the total centralization of power in the Federal Government.

    4. Millions of Che T-shirts can’t be wrong, can they?

            1. I’m partial to the mouse ears at No Pasaran.

              http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/

      1. I’ve seen the vendors selling Che shirts at the San Jose airport in Costa Rica. Che equals dollars for those guys.

    5. When people are seen as means then nothing about them individually matters.

      People who support it are sociopaths.

      And there will always be enough sociopaths to enable this sort of evil to have an audience.

    6. I think the temporary dominance of neo-liberalism between the era of Reagan and Obama is definitely at an end.

      Inequality + Diversity + Democray = Socialism

      1. The end of the USSR and communism in Eastern Europe, and the return of capitalism (sort of) in China and Vietnam, removed a great burden from the Left. They no longer had to defend those obvious failures. So now they’re back to simplistic, ahistorical fantasies about replacing capitalism.

        1. China has two looming government-induced nightmares that the left won’t be able to defend: the surplus of young males, and lethal pollution. Our kindergartners may fight these wars.

          Have you seen what’s going on even in showcase cities like Shanghai, Harbin, and Beijing nowadays?

      2. I think it’s the current progressive surge that coming to an end. The rest of world is leaving communism and socialism behind and haltingly embracing capitalism. People just don’t want to be poor. That means capital has more places to go.

        WTF does diversity have to do with anything?

        1. In various ways it’s used by the left against everyone else, and as an excuse for what they want to do anyway.

        2. Ask the French about that …

        3. B.S.

          WTF does race have to do with politics? I could never imagine such a thing.

          1. I think the example of 20th century Europe is a pretty good refutation of the idea that racial diversity is in some way a prerequisite for socialism.

            1. You don’t think that leftists are going to let history get in the way of their glorious ideas, do you?

    7. National Socialism is unfortunately making a comeback.

  26. Haven’t read Rolling Stone since the 80’s. Cream magazine was always better anyway.

    1. It’s “CREEM,” but yeah!

      Olivia Newton John: Have You Never Been Mellow (MCA)

      Robot A. Hull, May 1975

      WHAT FEMALE singer would ya like most to sit in yr lap? Connie Francis? (too old) Cher? (too bananas) Bette Midler? (stinks under the armpits and between her legs) Maria Muldaur? (yawn) Helen Reddy? (virgin) Anne Murray? (ugly) Suzi Quatro? (she’d stomp ya in yr marbles) Answer: Olivia!

      1. Whatevs.

        The Creem Dream! I remember when they had Billy Idol’s guitarist as “The Dream” – he looked like a girl. It was teh awsum…

  27. Didn’t Occupy Wall Street come up with a demand list similar to this and were laughed out of the room?

    When I was reading Dr. Zhivago, I noticed that there were three sorts of people during the Russian Revolution and the their Civil War. The first group of people just mostly wanted to get on with their lives and did whatever they had to do to survive. Then there was the intelligensia who sided with the Marxists (and actually believed that shit) and gave intellectual cover to the Lenin-Marxist philosophy and government. Then the last group were the ones who used chaos to gain power and was brutal. The third group used the second group as a means to ascend to power then when they fulfilled their purpose, had them executed.

    My point is that many of these people who want concentrated power in the hands of the government and on top always think they will be the ones making the decisions, when in reality, the brutal psychopaths will gain all the power and make life for anyone who opposes them a living hell.

    1. In fact, the True Believers are generally the first ones murdered. The reason for that is obvious. The most dangerous people for a totalitarian government are intellectuals who have platforms from which to speak. The intellectuals who were against the rise of the totalitarian government in the first place tend to get the fuck out of dodge immediately. That’s how Vladimir Nabakov’s family ended up in Western Europe. They just jumped ship when the Bolsheviks took over.

      The people who are left are the intellectuals who seriously think everything will be just fine. When things don’t go as planned, they tend to raise a ruckus and get murdered.

      1. Well, the True Believers are also idealists. And because they believe this shit, really, they call out the power grubbers on their fuck ups, intentionally evil as well as unintentionally evil.

      2. It’s Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy with added guns.

    2. “Didn’t Occupy Wall Street come up with a demand list similar to this and were laughed out of the room their shoddily contructed tent-village“?

      Something like that.

      Needs moar FREE STUFF

  28. It’s about the long decline of Rolling Stone.

    I have a vision of Hunter S Thompson pouring Wild Turkey all over this guy, setting him on fire, and then shooting at him as he runs away screaming.

    1. I wouldn’t waste the bullet. Let him burn.

      1. I wouldn’t waste the whiskey. Just shoot him.

  29. Anyone noticing a pattern here? Gillepse, among other cosmotarian writers, keeps putting out these articles claiming that the so-called “youth revolt,” “hippie movement,” “60s culture” or whatever largely inaccurate name you want to call it, was somehow admirable in the beginning, but is now “corrupted” by “communists.” It’s as if they were so stoned during the sixties they didn’t hear their compatriots call for socialist revolution, and only now do they sense it, and, rather than criticizing the whole idea of it, they maintain that the “revolution” has somehow been “betrayed.” Really, they are so wedded to that culture, they are cosmotarians after all, that they can’t smell it’s rotten core.

    1. You do realize that using the term “cosmotarian” makes you a moron, right?

      1. But Epi, how else to keep the kulturkampf front and center at all times? We needs to gnash our teeths about the Open Borders too, because, you know, cosmos and stuff.

        1. KULTUR WAR 4EVA

      2. Re: Episiarch,

        *Cosmotarian

        The cosmotarian is stereotypically a creature native to the libertarian outfits of Washington DC. A portmanteau of “cosmopolitan” and “libertarian,” the cosmotarian is a libertarian with socially liberal personal opinions, typically being pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and lacking objection to mild drug use. Unlike the paleo-libertarian, the cosmotarian probably likes atonal music and may or may not wear hipster glasses.

        For the record, I don’t like atonal music and don’t wear hipster glasses although I do not object to any drug use. I use the term cosmotarian to designate those libertarians that suck up to lefties in certain issues to appear more tolerant or less an asshole, even though appearances have NOTHING to do with libertarian ideas or principles. For instance, when Kmele Foster says that he’s not against food stamps in principle, by which he receives an agreement nod from the invited lefty, he’s being a cosmotarian.

        1. Congratulations, you use a moronic term that is essentially a retarded inter-libertarian KULTUR WAR definition. It’s like calling the People’s Front of Judea “splitters”. So you keep on doing that if you want to, and you’ll continue to be the equivalent of a Monty Python skit.

          1. I thought they were named after the Cosmopolitan, their drink of choice at the ubiquitous cocktail parties.

            1. I may have thought the same thing, can I be a libeertarian?

          2. Re: Episiarch,

            It’s like calling the People’s Front of Judea “splitters”.

            If you say so. I can come up with a more technical term that may be even less vague than the term “cosmotarian” to describe the sort of person that seems to hold libertarian-like ideas while not entirely convinced of the full implications of the principles. Not talking about culture wars at all, but what defines us from others.

            We can call them “pseudo-libertarians.”

          3. ITT, Epi can’t make a point.

          4. Way to respond in a substantive way to OM’s specific example.

        2. For instance, when Kmele Foster says that he’s not against food stamps in principle, by which he receives an agreement nod from the invited lefty, he’s being a cosmotarian.

          If Kmele Foster is a cosmotarian that word has lost all meaning. He’s argued against funding for public schools.

          Cosmotarian therefore basically means ‘any libertarian who says anything which I disagree with.’

          1. Re: Irish,

            If Kmele Foster is a cosmotarian that word has lost all meaning

            Oh, no. He gives a face to the word. One more, at least.

        3. I don’t know if I’m a cosmotarian. I live in DC. I don’t agree with food stamps in principle, but they would be one of the last things I would abolish.

          1. I’d abolish food stamps after I abolish the types of regulations that make many parts of America impossible to open a business in.

            So long as it’s impossible for a low income black person without a law degree to open a business due to the size of the regulatory state, I’m not sure that removing food stamps would improve the situation. I think it actually would cause suffering since the government has constructed a situation in which there simply are no jobs in any of those areas.

            How the fuck is someone supposed to get work in Detroit when the government is actively running people out of business in the midst of a municipal bankruptcy?

            1. In Alabama, where Blacks and Whites both live under the rule of noble Republicans, we see much more Black business success than we do in areas where Blacks rule themselves.

              /sarc

              How do you explain all those middle easterners who start businesses in Detroit?

              1. In Alabama, where Blacks and Whites both live under the rule of noble Republicans, we see much more Black business success than we do in areas where Blacks rule themselves.

                You’re using as your example a part of the country in which blacks were denied educational opportunities for over 100 years and did not even have equality under the law until the late 60’s. There are black people in Alabama whose grandparents were the victims of lynch mobs and who have never had any relative go to a school that could provide a solid education.

                Are you really telling me that a large portion of black poverty in the south isn’t the result of cultural problems that were themselves directly caused by racism and oppression?

                Moreover, Detroit had a massive black middle class until right around 1970 when it suddenly vanished. That almost makes it seem as if something happened in Detroit right around 1970 that made it more difficult for African Americans to make money or start businesses.

                You’re also ignoring the fact that black people in, say, England are far closer in wealth to white people in that country, which implies that there’s something about our country that is the primary cause of inequality…and that something is not simple racial difference.

                Of course, you don’t care about facts because you’re a chinless drooling racist who keeps your cousin chained up in your sex dungeon, so I should expect nothing more from you than this ludicrous argument.

                1. There has been very little progress since the end of segregation, in the South or the North, or the West. Or other areas which are ran by White democrats. But that’s the nature of your argument, wherever Blacks are ruled by Democrats, it’s the fault of Democrat economic policies, wherever Blacks are ruled by Republicans, it’s racism. Of course the Black middle class vanished, they all moved away from their Black brothers because the end of segregation allowed them to.

                  I would like to see a source for the England claim. I wouldn’t doubt it because England is itself a more equal society. Look at the position in society, how many of them are doctors or lawyers and such? But I would doubt the “far” claim.

                  And what did happen in 1970 in Detroit? Black rule is what happened. And it just happened to be ruled by people who mismanaged it greatly. I’m sure your say the same thing about Nigeria or Haiti, it’s government mismanagement! Where Whites rule Blacks, it’s White racism, where Blacks rule Blacks, it’s government mismanagement.

                  1. There has been very little progress since the end of segregation

                    True, but there was quite amazing progress prior to that time, especially in the Northern, Midwest, and Western states which had desegregated. The black literacy rate from 1910-1938 was comparable to (and generally higher than) the average for European countries. Black upward mobility was fairly high during the Great Migration, and the yearly increase in black family income often outperformed that of most other ethnic groups at that time outside of Jews and Asians.

                    And what did happen in 1970 in Detroit? Black rule is what happened.

                    We’re not exactly talking Frederick Douglass ideological look-alikes running things. The relevance in this fact is phenomenological, and is not well explained by crass racist just-so stories. If you would like to proffer an explanation for why one should expect skin color (or even intelligence distribution among leadership in general) to cause the disastrous results seen in Detroit, I would like to hear it.

                    1. They weren’t very desegregated, but everyone was doing well during that time, even during the depression they were better off than a lot of Europe. Blacks vote for Democrats are very high rates, Obama got 93% of their vote. But even with this, you see that when White Democrats run things it looks like Silicon Valley, when Black Democrats run things it looks like Detroit. It’s a combination of socialism and mismanagement, not just the socialism.

                      It is ultimately because there are three kinds of people in the world, the very smart people(Doctors, engineers, competent government workers, ect), the honest working class,(the bricklayer, the fruitpicker, ect) and the parasitical class.(criminals, con-men, welfare leeches, those prone to violence, ect) All races have all three types of people, but the percentage distributions are different. That’s why the races create different types of societies.

                    2. when White Democrats run things it looks like Silicon Valley

                      Yeah, that’s what the Great Society programs remind me of — the efficiency of Silicon Valley. The fact that Detroit is a government and Silicon Valley a non-government private sector miracle doesn’t have anything to do with these differences.

                      It is ultimately because there are three kinds of people in the world[…] All races have all three types of people, but the percentage distributions are different.

                      This is how very stupid people view the world. A tripartite division of people, statically divided in different distributions among races since time immemorial and continuing in such a fashion ’till the end of time? Even if you take these categories as meaningful, the explanatory power of this theory is essentially nil in explaining *how* and *why* societies change. Did Tsarist Russia import a bunch of shiftless blacks prior to the Russian Revolution, a change in government reversed only after the USSR imported a bunch of Germans in the 90s to dismantle the system? Why did the UK (and Europe in general) change so dramatically during the interwar period? How come countries like Botswana look so different from the DRC? None of these questions are explained one bit by your operating theory, and this should cause you great distress.

                  2. “Show us on the doll where the black man touched you”

                    Actually, I really think that line is completely played out. I call DRINK with further use.

            2. ^This is correct. While programs like food stamps are a moral abomination, they fall low on the priority list of welfare programs that need to be eliminated. Cronyism and corporate bailouts are item number 1. Item number 2 is public sector unions.

              If we expect the poor to be self-sufficient then the well connected should set the standard by giving up their welfare programs first.

            3. How the fuck is someone supposed to get work in Detroit when the government is actively running people out of business in the midst of a municipal bankruptcy?

              They are supposed to leave Detroit.

        4. A “cosmotarian” is someone who accepts both libertarianism and all the attributes of modern leftism save the economic beliefs(though they are often more than willing to compromise on those, too). The cosmotarian accepts the basic premises of cultural marxism and the blank slate theory and is hostile to the existence of traditional White America. Cosmotarianism is basically liberalsim, with government replacing capitalism as the ultimate source of all the problems in the world.

          To see the issue clearly, look at an issue, say, “failing schools.” A liberal will argue that it is caused by “no funding,” while a cosmotarian will argue that it is caused by “unions.” Both sides maintain that it has nothing to do with the students, both are more alike than different.

          1. Is it painful being retarded? I’m genuinely curious.

            1. American??

              1. Man, that fucker is more persostent than Vorhees.

            2. I think by ‘cultural marxism’ he means, “NOT HATING ON GAYS AND MEXICANS AND DRUG USERS AND ALLOWING CRITICISMS OF WHITE PEOPLE ETC” is like, totally Cosmo.

              1. Cultural Marxist propaganda site Wikipedia has a pretty good definition:

                Cultural Marxism refers to a school or offshoot of Marxism that conceives of culture as central to the legitimation of oppression, in addition to the economic factors that Karl Marx emphasized.[1] An outgrowth of Western Marxism (especially Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School) and finding popularity in the 1960s as cultural studies, Cultural Marxism argues that what appear as traditional cultural phenomena intrinsic to Western society, for instance the drive for individual acquisition associated with capitalism, nationalism, the nuclear family, gender roles, race and other forms of cultural identity;[1] are historically recent developments that help to justify and maintain hierarchy. Cultural Marxists use Marxist methods (historical research, the identification of economic interest, the study of the mutually conditioning relations between parts of a social order) to try to understand the complexity of power in contemporary society and to make it possible to criticise what, cultural Marxists propose, appears natural but is in fact ‘ideological’.

                1. “the nuclear family, gender roles, race and other forms of cultural identity”

                  Uh, yeah – that’s what I said = gays, brown people etc.

                  Calling libertarians “cultural Marxists” is just a bullshit semantic way of saying, “NOT NATIVIST AND KULTURWAR ENOUGH” for so-con type self-avowed ‘libertoids’.

                  Because when you take away the actual “Marxism” part (i.e. political & economic leanings), all you’re left with is the KULTUR = which you’d prefer to be diehard SOCON, pretending that this is somehow more logically the norm and the obvious derived social consequence of REAL Libertarian values.

                  Which is bullshit.

                  1. Uh, yeah – that’s what I said = gays, brown people etc.

                    Basically that is what you said, yes. You just phrased it differently. Or do you believe that gender roles and race are based on biology and not “social constructions?”

                    I am not too much of a socon, I am an atheist after all, but I guess anyone who doesn’t want their country to be transformed into Latin America is a socon.

                    And since you love Brown people so much, I’m sure you live in a neighborhood that “looks like America” right?

                    1. “I guess anyone who doesn’t want their country to be transformed into Latin America is a socon.”

                      No, but why you seem to think libertarians are supposed to all be on-board with some kind of Nativist Movement *by default* is patently retarded *(noted by Epi first… took me longer to recognize symptoms)

                      Go hang out on VDare if all you give a shit about is the Brown Menace. So some (most?) libertarians don’t give a shit about your KulturWar fetish – so @#$&* what? I don’t recall that being part of any libertarian literature I’ve ever read. Take your pet issues and dangle, and quit pretending you’re being ‘marginalized’ or somehow don’t get a fair hearing because of your *poor oppressed whiteness*. Cracker please. That’s just sad.

                    2. I am not too much of a socon, I am an atheist after all, but I guess anyone who doesn’t want their country to be transformed into Latin America is a socon.

                      Are you aware that a big chunk of the current USA was part of Mexico (Latin America) prior to the Texas revolution and its subsequent joining with the USA circa 1848? The southwestern USA as far north as San Francisco has been part of Latin America since the seventeenth century.

                    3. Technically true, but the areas were Mexican Territories, just like they became American Territories. The area was thinly populated, mostly by Native Americans. It wasn’t really “Latin America”-ish. It was just part of the New World which had been claimed by Spain instead of England or France. None of which, of course, matters in regard as to whether J L Mallon is a racist.

            3. It’s more of a dull sensation followed by pleasant nothingness. I should know, I was retarded for a brief period in the summer of ’93.

          2. “The cosmotarian … is hostile to the existence of traditional White America”

            You kidding? I LOVE THAT GUY!

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGxpdP3ZbWQ

            No, seriously – WTF does ‘hostile’ to traditional white america’ even mean?

            Let me guess! NOT BLAMING NIGGERS FAGS AND MEXICANS FOR EVERYTHING? Go figure.

          3. Fuck off Merican.

        5. “I use the term cosmotarian to designate those libertarians that suck up to lefties in certain issues to appear more tolerant or less an asshole”

          The most common usage of it I’ve seen by the self-avowed ‘paleos’ tends to be particularly aimed at ‘younger and hipper’ libertoids who see no need to get into long pedantic Rothbardian debates over everything, and for whom Kulturkampf issues mean almost nothing. The Nativist Libertarians get the most heated by H&R’s apparent lack of pants-wetting over the Tidal Wave of brown folks takin’ all the Welfares, etc….

          in general, I think its fucking gay. By that, I mean in a ‘lame way’.

          Although I agree = the “sometime agreeing with liberals in order to not seem ‘too fringe-y’ is pretty fucking lame too. But I personally have a pretty good solution that works *every time* for those situations = simply point out that the stated ‘solution’ they so care about is *no good for the task*. Example with ‘Climate Change/Global Warming’ = rather than fight people on the ‘is shit warming or not’, I’ll say, “Even if I concede there’s AGW, the proposed ‘cap and trade’ etc. is as completely useless as bioethanol” etc.

          1. for whom Kulturkampf issues mean almost nothing.

            This certainly doesn’t apply to Gilmore, who clearly cares a lot about how wonderful homosexuals, drug users, sluts, and other various cultural icons are and how anyone who disagrees with him is a REDNECK FUCKIN PIECE O SHIT!

            1. Wow, you see right through me.

              Given I’m at least half ‘redneck’ myself that seems a bit difficult. Regarding homos, druggies, etc. I have no opinion. They don’t bother me, I don’t bother them, WIN-WIN. Crazy, right?

  30. BREAKING NEWS =

    Inarticulate Middle Class White Kid with Theater Degree from Expensive Liberal Arts University Advocates Socialism

    basics require “not working hard” and “getting free stuff”; questions regarding mechanics of this novel socio-economic schema were disregarded as ‘trolling’.

    more as this develops.

  31. 1. Guaranteed Work for Everybody

    2. Social Security for All

    3. Take Back The Land

    4. Make Everything Owned by Everybody

    5. A Public Bank in Every State

    This was tried in medieval Europe.

    It was called “manorialism”

    I suspect people who support these policies feel that they will be barons, and not serfs.

    1. This was tried in medieval Europe.

      I’m no expert on Marx but he (and most socialists) has always seemed mostly anti-modern–almost luddite-ish. Do you think he was pining for a nobler time when all things were hunky-dory, before the rise of the middle-class merchants and the absolute-ruler kings of the 18th and 19th centuries?

  32. (the “#FULLCOMMUNISM” in his Twitter bio gives you a sense of his political commitments).

    Well, just a sense. I believe he was still holding back a bit. I would say he would be more open and honest regarding his bona fides if his Twitter bio is “#FELATECOMMUNISTS”

  33. Myerson, you ignorant fuck, it doesn’t matter you don’t want “gulags” as what you retardedly argue for usually leads to atrocities against fellow man as history has shown and dictates. Prick.

  34. 1. Guaranteed Work for Everybody – what does this mean? What happens when, say, some self-entitled left-winger decides a job is ‘beneath’ them? Do they magically get a better job? How do you profess to reorganize the labour market and how it relates to wages in the free market? Wait. Never mind. What happens if someone doesn’t want to work? My brother is as lazy as they come but that doesn’t prevent him from engaging in anti-capitalist drivel at the table.

    2. Social Security for All. Save. Your. Money. No one owes you shit. Best advice I got from an old man when I was a teller back in the 1990s.

    3. Take Back The Land. Which basically means murder. As in the proletariat taking by force the land because I sure as hell won’t give it up and hand it over to hamballs. What’s left is for the state to come and take it from me not by peaceful means but by robbing me. Sorta like how the white man took it from the Natives, right Myerson? You son of a bitch?

    4. Make Everything Owned by Everybody. This is so meaningless and without any merit only a child could believe in this. How can you begin to make “everything owned by everybody?” Jesus, the logistics of it alone make no sense unless the government literally takes over everything. Which means, you’re a communist.

    5. A Public Bank in Every State. See above. You ask for capital to effectively be put in the hands of the government. Again. Commie. Just go away, already.

    1. Make Everything Owned by Everybody. This is so meaningless and without any merit only a child could believe in this.

      It’s like the national debt. We owe it to ourselves!

  35. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

    That’s gonna piss of the “Smart Growth” crowd. I thought we were supposed to round up all the farmers and slaughter them, so the land can return to its natural state.

  36. Was going to save these for the regular week, but since the theme of the day seems to be insane leftist scribblings…

    How Computer Games Can Help Us Overthrow Capitalism

    the economics of computer games nearly always resemble early capitalism: trade, conquest and ruthless rule-bending are the sources of wealth; actual human labour and ingenuity almost never[…] What I am proposing is something different. What if, just as in an Occupy camp, where they try to “live despite capitalism”, you could live “despite” the property forms and voracious market economics of a computer game?

    Ooh, I hope we finally get that officially licensed Drum Circle video game everyone’s always clamoring for.

    These are good questions, because a whole school of economists thinks what they describe is the basic problem facing us in the real world. Yochai Benkler, a Harvard law professor, has described how the rise of free stuff, collaborative production and non-commercial products such as Wikipedia, create a glitch within capitalism.

    “I’ll show what economists think by quoting a law professor.”

    The challenge is to design a game where the economy can evolve: from competition to collaboration. Where instead of being a badass in LA, you can be a goodass on a communal farm in Andalusia.

    Life imitates the Onion.

    1. Bonus technologically-impaired stupidity:

      A game where the “modding” goes on within the official product, not through unauthorised experimental versions

      An understanding of modding paralleled only by the columnist’s demonstrated mastery of economics.

      1. “Comrades, throw off the restrictive and voracious chains of market economics, and do your modding only in official, authorized ways!”

      2. So, Skyrim? (to name just one recent, prominent title)

    2. I bet whoever wrote that was one of those assholes begging for gold in WoW trade chat.

      1. +1 Cricket bat to the cajones

      2. NEEDZ MOAR LENTILS

      3. Very nice.

    3. Yochai Benkler, a Harvard law professor, has described how the rise of free stuff, collaborative production and non-commercial products such as Wikipedia, create a glitch within capitalism.

      Yeah, spontaneous order created by voluntary exchange on terms mutually agreeable to all involved parties… that definitely doesn’t sound anything like capitalism!

    4. “These are good questions, because a whole school of economists thinks what they describe is the basic problem facing us in the real world. Yochai Benkler, a Harvard law professor, has described how the rise of free stuff, collaborative production and non-commercial products such as Wikipedia, create a glitch within capitalism.”

      I’m not clear on the depth of this “glitch” within capitalism when Wikipedia is nearly constantly begging for money in order to keep providing “free stuff” to the masses. At least they don’t trot out the obligatory Peter, Paula and Mary concerts to prime the pumps of the cause.

  37. I remember being a date with this girl who called herself a peaceful socialist collectivist. Kid you not. So anyway, while on one of our dates I finally asked her, “If you and people who are likeminded seized power how would you get rid of private property and on top of that bring property and industry under the state control?” After much coaxing, I got her to admit that she would indeed use force if necessary. I then asked how could she call herself a peaceful collectivist if she was willing to use force to acheive her ends.

    Yeah, she didn’t want much to do with me after that date.

    1. Should have fucked her first.

      1. I should have.

        1. I’ve always been attracted to lefty women. My current girlfriend is a Northeast Ohio liberal. I did acheive with having her hate Obama guts and the teacher’s union.

          1. My wife is a Northeast Ohio (former) liberal. I’ve managed to turn her into at least a semi-libertarian, almost to the point where she spouts off about it without thinking about it to her Kennedy-worshipping mom and her psycho lefty friends, at which point I have to rescue her from the pain that follows. On some issues she has the zeal of a new convert, which is not always ideal when you’re surrounded by educated shitheads.

            I’ve managed to do this with very little overt effort. It’s strange. Then again, I’m a (former) NE Ohio righty, which was fun growing up.

            1. Cuyahoga and Lorain counties have become socialist hellholes (I still live here). The rest of NE OH is rather conservative. My Dad’s car with AuH2O’64 was vandalized a few times.

              1. Not Summit County. Summit County, save for Cuyahoga Falls (sort of), is pretty fucking blue. The brand of conservatism around here is the of the labor-union-uber-alles protectionist bigot sort, which is solidly blue when it comes down to it. LaTourette’s old district, is, of course, largely Team Red (and in 2008, a libertarian actually ran against him), but it’s more of a New England sort of Team Red until you get up to Ashtabula County.

                Medina County, however, is at least somewhat sane.

      2. Dude, she was a ‘peaceful socialist collectivist.’ There is no way in hell she did not put out on the first date.

        1. Yeah, but he’s a “libertarian.”

          1. Shut the fuck up, American.

            1. You can tell that one hit a nerve. Stereotypes, huh?

              1. It’s such a sick burn because the race obsessed doom bunker dweller typically has to beat the pussy away with a stick.

        2. “Hey baby, you don’t want me to tell the comisar that you’re hoarding your vagina, do you?”

        3. She was also going to dvinity school, (got a degree in social justice) so I don’t know how down she was for a roll in the hay on the first couple of dates. I went out with her because despite her belief system, I did find her interesting but when I challenged her and her friend’s assumptions, they became hostile.

          1. A prog going to divinity school? What, were you dating William Jennings Bryan?

            1. That would be a hell of a reality show.

              1. “A GOLD ring?!Do you want to crucify the Republic, bitch?”

                Other idea: a sitcom where William Jennings Bryant and Flavor Flav live together as a modern day Odd Couple.

                1. I worked in finance and remember her friends calling me a neo-liberal and the tool of the rich. Like that would have insulted me.

                2. +1 for the cross of gold reference.

    2. So, did you get any?

    3. Always fuck them first. I have regrets.

      Anyway. I had a left-wing girl tell me, not ask me, tell me all men had homosexual fantasies. When I objected, she told me I was suppressing it.

      How are you supposed to argue with that nonsense?

      Yes. I banged her. I stayed focused.

      1. You don’t argue the point, you tell her
        that she needs to keep you from going over.

      2. Yes. I banged her. I stayed focused.

        Sure, but afterwards you probably fantasized that she was a dude.

        So who’s the real winner there?

  38. A Public Bank in Every State.

    This befuddles me. Or is “bank” some sort of euphemism?

    Like, say, a euphemism for an unlimited pool of government money, interest free, with no repayment necessary. For deserving Party apparatchiki, of course.

    1. Perhaps it’s like the Left Bank?

      1. I should explain as I read around on Ellen Brown’s site:

        They want the Feds to issue unbacked money and the states to operate public banks as a way to end “debt money” and cut the Wall Street fat cats out of the loop.

        It’s a lot more detailed than that of course but it’s herpderp all the way down.

    2. They mean that every state can print money.

      1. No the greenbackers reserve that to the Feds.

        Actually having each state print their own money as long each was accepted in every other state would be a step up from where we are now.

        Nowhere near what Freebanking could do of course.

  39. The thing is that despite all this going on and on about “gulags,” cosmotarians actually are willing to accept redistribution, which the more sane among them recognize as inevitable:

    https://reason.com/archives/201…..eople-free

    This shows how cosmotarians don’t even believe everything they say, they know the utopia won’t come, but they still use it to argue for open borders, affirmative action, and other liberal goals.

    1. So, you’ve completely dedicated yourself to being a retard. Keep saying “cosmotarian”, it’s pretty fucking hilarious. You might also want to draw “MONGOLOID” on your forehead while you’re at it. Make sure you use indelible ink so that your dedication is proven.

    2. When has anyone here argued in favor of affirmative action?

      1. Many times, usually in the context of “it’s be nice, but,” the same logic they use to promote redistribution and anti-discrimination law. Usually they just deny it exists or make absurd claims about how much it does.

        1. Is there some sort of a mirror universe Reason that some of the trolls get to read?

        2. In other words, ‘never’. At least outside your demented fever dreams.

        3. SoCon troll?

  40. A link to make you all grateful I stick to the shallow end of the vast ocean that is insane internet feminism:

    I know I’ve said before ? here and elsewhere ? that female “heterosexuality” is not a meaningful concept to me. That is, politically, and with regard specifically to radical feminism, I don’t believe that whatever a woman feels in her head (influenced so mandatorily as it is by male supremacy) about her own sexual inclinations really matters in the grand scheme[…] An internal self-assessment just really doesn’t matter in comparison with the external interactions, and the way those interactions reflect and perpetuate male supremacy.

    Got that, straight ladies?

    Women wanting what men want ? the subjugation of women ? doesn’t mean that women’s subjugation is now a female desire. It simply means that some women want what men want. They are men’s women. So long as men hold a position of dominance over women, having desires that coincide with theirs is simply complicity in male supremacy, not a female-derived interest that must be taken into account by radical feminists It would be nice if women who want to cooperate with men would simply say that, instead of masquerading their sheep-hood as independent thought.

    Human biology is a tool of the Patriarchy.

    1. And of course, the coup de grace:

      It doesn’t matter whether a woman situates her experiences closer to one end of the rape spectrum than the other.

      It always comes down to rape with these types, doesn’t it?

      1. At least the “radical feminists” are being somewhat ideologically consistent with their belief in the blank slate. “Mainstream” feminists try to claim that heterosexuality is innate, but that everything that describes heterosexuality, other than the desire for the body parts, is socially constructed.

        1. Hey Muriken, any bets how long you last tonight? I’m betting you don’t make it to 10 Eastern.

        2. no

          I am pretty sure they think boobs are a social construct.

    2. It’s gone!

      Did your patriarchal male privilege scare it away?

      1. Don’t force your heteronormative constructs onto my genderfluid internet links!

        1. That’s your fault for using a CISP.

      2. Based on the other posts there, they seem to be one of those radical feminists who hates trannies.

        1. Oh, I don’t mind, it’s pure Komedy gold.

    3. An internal self-assessment just really doesn’t matter in comparison with the external interactions

      “Due to circumstances beyond my control, I am the master of my fate and captain of my soul.”

  41. So I moved to LA back in October. I’m slowly becoming a wimp for cold. How do I remedy this?

    1. Anal beads made of ice.

  42. The hills are alive with the sound of COSMOTARIANISMZ

    1. With songs that have been sung, since the Bush years!

  43. More of the wisdom of Margaret Jamison, this time on the subject of male rape:

    It’s always sort of irritated me to see women expound on the horribleness of men raping each other in prison. So many women seem to feel a compulsion to declare their opposition to its occurrence and their sympathy for the victims, despite the fact that males, as a class, including the ones being raped in prison, have no such compassion for raped female people. I’m not saying that if males did care about female people being raped that I’d give any more of a shit about their being raped in prison. I’m just saying that male nonchalance in the face of female people being raped makes all too stark the masochism of female people concerned about male-on-male rape.

    Oh, my.

    1. Apparently your link has been raped.

      1. Not sure why my links aren’t working for y’all. Must me my subconscious desire to censor strong female voices acting up again.

    2. the fact that males, as a class […], have no such compassion for raped female people

      Which is why the patriarchy never criticizes, lynches, or imprisons rapists.

      Wait….

    3. males, as a class

      When the fuck did males become a class?

  44. I’m 25, so here’s my list of things Milleniels should fight for:

    1. Stop liking things “ironically”

    2. No more duck face. Ever.

    3. Anyone who uses Facebook to post smug political rants will be shunned

    4. Actually calling another human being instead of texting

    5. A genocide of the hipsters

    1. Fuck #4.

      I was opposed to texting for a long time. Now I’m at the point where I do not want to hear your voice. Just send me text.

      1. Text, you whippersnapper? Screw that. Send an email.

        1. REAL AMERICANS DO IT WITH SMOKE SIGNALS

      2. Dude, if I’m seeing a girl, I would rather call her once every few days/once a day (depends where we are) at night than text constantly through the day and then text every other minute for 2 hours at night when a 30 minute call would work.

        Also, date texting has taught me emoticons. I hate that I had to learn those.

        1. Skype also works well for verbal communication.

        2. Texting with women is dangerous. A lot can get lost in translation. Especially a guy like me who tends to dead pan a tad too much. Man, one time my wife’s friend texted me about a gift she wanted to buy and took all concentration to not write “we should mate.”

          1. Heck, talking with women is dangerous.

        3. That’s different.

      3. I have a nasally voice. So I should like text.

        1. I have one as well!!! holy crap we have so much in common! Do you enjoy funk/rock like the Chili Peppers? Do you enjoy sleeping 12 hour days when not working?

      4. I was opposed to texting for a long time. Now I’m at the point where I do not want to hear your voice. Just send me text.

        This. Why talk when I can read?

    2. Addendum:

      We live in the most technologically advanced and prosperous period in the history of mankind. Human creativity and ingenuity march forward, bringing peace and a better world for all along with it.

      Do not fuck this up.

      1. RAH time: Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded ? here and there, now and then ? are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as “bad luck.”

        1. This is known as “bad luck.”

          That’s why the Great Leap Forward is officially known in China as the Three Years of Natural Disasters.

      2. bringing peace and a better world for all along with it.

        The problem is that this isn’t true, and no one believes it to be true.

        1. no one believes it to be true.

          HERP DERP

        2. We’re living in the period of the lowest poverty in human history and the most peaceful time in human history.

          Just because you’re a pessimistic moron who doesn’t want to admit that things are pretty good, probably because then you wouldn’t be allowed to blame failures on the obstreperous Negro, doesn’t change the fact that truth doesn’t need your say so to remain true.

          1. “the obstreperous Negro”

            I don’t know why, but I thought, “dennis rodman?”

            I think that’s racist in some way.

          2. We’re living in the period of the lowest poverty in human history and the most peaceful time in human history.

            Depends which “we” you’re talking about. Much of the world isn’t in what could be reasonably called “peace”. The absence of a giant, global conflict is a pretty low bar to set.

    3. If they actually learn what irony is I’d settle for that.

  45. They want the Feds to issue unbacked money and the states to operate public banks as a way to end “debt money” and cut the Wall Street fat cats out of the loop.

    Repaying your debts is insufferably bourgeouis.

  46. Is it just me or just pur coincidence that Progressives are avoiding the subject of Obamacare. On my Facebook feed a day or two before the launch everyone was praising the idea that everyone can be covered but now, none of my progressive buddies post anything about Obamacare. Their defeat is delicious.

    1. I had one friend, a major Obama sycophant with whom I argued about Obamacare in the summer (I predicted the exchanges would not be ready, he and his friends scoffed), completely disappear from FB around the time HealthCare.gov launched.

      1. They got a case of the sads because a guy who they thought were brilliant ws revealed as a bumbling mortal.

        1. Kinda sad that it took a comparatively minor event like a government website not working for them to reach that realization after 5 consecutive years of spectacular, monumental fuckups.

  47. Maggie’s musings continued. Subject: strap-ons (C’mon, don’t act like you’re surprised.)

    What I want more than anything is for women to achieve a state of being that is untainted. I especially want us to free ourselves from male rule and influence, for us to be unaltered in ways that are modeled on maleness. The reliance of women on various man-made implements to mediate their relations with other women, whether psychological constructs or manufactured goods, is an adulteration of the female.

    Good, good. Start with a far-reaching categorical statement, then work in references to “man-made implements” and “relations with other women”. I trust you see where she’s going with this…

    Femaleness cannot be enhanced by maleness, only denied, suppressed, and degraded, lessened. The master’s tools inhabit our minds and the realm of our physical lives? And I don’t think that a tool forged by males or in their likeness is any less male when wielded by women.

    The master’s tools. I do like that — has a very theatrical flair to it.

    1. This is absolutely bat shit insane. I was telling a feminist friend the other day that they need to completely chase these crazies out of their group because if not, you guys will surely become a joke and being relagated to the deep dark hell of acadamia.

      1. It’s more the case of the crazies having chased all the normals out of the tent with second-wave feminism, and then reluctantly let them back in (with the condition that the crazies still more or less establish the template of feminism).

        Sadly, Marcotte and Jezebel are fairly sane compared to the other bits of feminist nonsense you find on the internet.

    2. Maggie may need to come to terms with the reality that many women like and even prefer the male – cough, cough, well, you know. Whether it be in the flesh or some other form.

      1. “The one true god is what’s between a woman’s legs.”

    3. This is Jared Laughner level insanity.

    4. Sounds like the bitch needs to be fucked.

    5. Keep linking! It’s as if they’re wiping everything as you’re working.

      1. Note to TIT, ASM, and others:

        If you suspect that something you are linking to could be taken down or if you simply want to deprive it of pageviews (*cough*Gawker*cough*) you can take a snapshot of it with archive.is and link to that in addition (or simply instead).

    6. It is as if they believe that women are naturally the slaves of men, they just don’t want to succumb to what they think nature intended.

  48. Does anyone know the average age of a Rolling Stone reader? Because, you know, “youth.”

  49. Finally, some good old-fashioned tranny-bashing (h/t PapayaSF)

    Because on the whole, average, collective, individual level, deep down inside they are deceitful people. Society do not make trannies deceitful, it is who they are. Deceitful people have latched on to tranny-ism (an ideology created in order for deceit to prosper) because it gives them cover.
    Trust your instincts. It is not about expression, rebellion, transgression, etc. It is about a group of horrible and to the bone sociopaths creating a socially and lawfully means to practice their deceit. If I didn’t consider them so fundamentally monstrous, I would feel sorry for them.

    You sound stressed, Maggie. Maybe a little you time with a dildo would– oh, right. Never mind.

    1. Trust your instincts.

      She can’t even do radical feminism right!

      About the trannies she has the same motive to be disgusted by them as men do.

  50. Read this last night. Had to stick my fingers in my ears for a while because I feared my brain was trying to escape.

    My favorite of his tweets is that he said that none of that had been tried before, when all of it was part of the Soviet constitution.

    1. History… doomed… repeat…

      1. Hipster-proggie-douche: But we’re like way smarter than anyone that lived before us.

  51. The master’s tools inhabit our minds and the realm of our physical lives

    Did this woman fall out of a third floor window as a child?

  52. I see you fucksticks have finally seen the policy prescriptions of a REAL leftist.

    This makes the market-based O’Romneycare seem downright center right.

    1. I see you still bandy about non-sequitur in response to arguments no one has actually made.

    2. Yeah, and anal rape is preferable to being flayed. What’s your point?

    3. This makes the market-based O’Romneycare seem downright center right.

      I agree! Getting shot by your force is so much better than their force.

    4. Teh moderate leftism that you have seen so far is only the tip of the iceberg. You really think that O care is going to accomplish their vision of a raceless, generless, nationless world society, which is what they admittedly want? They are going to keep going down the road to socialism until they get there.

    5. Re: Palin’s Buttwipe,

      I see you fucksticks have finally seen the policy prescriptions of a REAL leftist.

      This makes the market-based O’Romneycare seem downright center right.

      I can show you that the 5 policy prescriptions are the pilars of Obamacare:

      * Guaranteed Work For Everybody: as impromptu website beta testers

      * Social Security for All: Yes, it’s already for all. We’re all paying for it.

      * Take Back The Land: That is, through foreclosures after attempting to pay the exorbitant deductibles.

      * Make Everything Owned by Everybody: “It’s the law of the land!” means “Everybody gets owned!”

      * A Public Bank in Every State: Ok, not yet but give it time.

    6. PB is happy he’s not the biggest asshole in the universe today

      You get a vacation. Congrats.

      1. I’m feeling generous, let’s give him a cookie too.

  53. And Alex Smith is a top ten NFL QB. Not sure that SF QB is.

    1. I can’t believe I responding to a fake classical liberal but I’ve always felt Smith was a solid QB. Time will tell if better than Kapernick.

      1. I have a feeling Colts are pulling a win out.

        1. Posted 16 minutes ago. 31-10. Still believe this?

          And for all Kapernick’s running options, Smith is pretty damn effective with that including QB sneaks.

          1. Seems less likely.

            1. 41-38 in dramatic fashion. You were onto something. Shoulda known. The Colts have done this all year long – and the Chiefs are a Reid coached team.

              1. This could be a classic in the making.

              2. They burned their last timeout. So Andy Reid.

                Wow. They blew the lead.

                1. This is why you never leave early.

                  1. I commend you on your prescient call.

                    I never get commended on mine here!

                  2. You called it.

          2. Before Kaep becomes a relly good QB, he needs to learn to tell time.
            Every snap is a drama; will he get it off in time?

            1. That may be an OC issue. When Turner was coaching the Chargers he called the plays and Rivers often looked like an idiot because he had so little time at the line. This year, hardly any false starts and plenty of time between huddle/play-call and adjustments at the line.

    2. Too bad he blew a three touchdown lead.

  54. Bonus Twitter idiocy: Balko tweeted something at the writer of this idiocy. Writer retweeted it. Balko gets bashed, including accusations of pro-Koch bias. Here

    1. These people are retarded.

      1. Don’t insult the mentally disabled like that. They can’t help it. These idiots made a conscious choice to be this dumb.

      2. These people are morons and that’s why we’re going to win. Reality is on our side.

        1. Eh, I wouldn’t be so sure. Those who lived during the “long 19th century” were sitting pretty until WWI (a war they claimed would never happen, whatwith the level of international trade) followed by the Depression sent the whole system tumbling down.

          1. The civilized world was too small and prone to centralization back then. It was America and Britain and Eurotrash. The last self-destructed, the middle also self-destructed and lost its colonial holdings most of which left the civilized world, and the former became ‘the place’.

            Now there is competition. Latin America Asia and much of Africa are rising up. Huge leaps. The civilized world is expanding and that means competition.

            1. I hope you’re right.

          2. Those who lived during the “long 19th century” were sitting pretty until WWI (a war they claimed would never happen, whatwith the level of international trade) followed by the Depression sent the whole system tumbling down.

            The 19th century wasn’t libertarian at all, not even in the US. Slavery was legal for the first 65 years, the national government was dominated by whigs and whigish republicans for the last 2/3 of the century. There pro-railroad and pro-business policies set the stage for socialism, er progressivism.

            The most anti libertarian amendments to the constitution, prohibition and income tax were the culmination of political movements stretching back to the the 1870s.

            The lack of power of the federal government was due more to inertia than any political philosophy, and almost all sides were pushing to expand federal power all during the century. Culminating in the abuses of Woodrow Wilson’s war socialism.

        2. That isn’t the lesson of Idiocracy.

    2. It wouldn’t be Balko without a nut-punch: Lesbians in South Africa subjected to “corrective rape”

      Mvuleni Fana was walking down a quiet alleyway in Springs ? 30 miles east of Johannesburg ? on her way home from football practice one evening when four men surrounded her and dragged her back to the football stadium. She recognised her attackers. One by one, the men raped her, beating her unconscious and leaving her for dead.

      The next morning, Mvuleni came round, bleeding, battered, in shock, and taunted by one overriding memory ? the last thing they said to her before she passed out: “After everything we’re going to do to you, you’re going to be a real woman, and you’re never going to act like this again”.

      Corrective rape is a hate crime wielded to convert lesbians to heterosexuality ? an attempt to ‘cure’ them of being gay. The term was coined in South Africa in the early 2000s when charity workers first noticed an influx of such attacks. But despite recognition and international coverage, corrective rape in the region is escalating in severity, according to Clare Carter, the photographer behind these images. This is amid a backdrop of parts of the country “becoming more homophobic”, as one recent victim asserts.

      God damn it.

      1. This is in a country which is regionally recognized for its stance on gay rights. Isn’t any better (in fact, it’s significantly worse) throughout the rest of the continent, I’m afraid.

        1. They’ll say anything to get Western “aid” money, and Westerners will congratulate themselves on what a model society they are building. But you’d bet the police are even more “homophobic” than the general population. Even if the rulers wanted to stop these kinds of things, they couldn’t because the population is sympathetic.

      2. Thank God Saint Mandela rode to the rescue and saved that country! Racial problems fixed, economy righted, crime down…

    3. What is it with their obsession with Koch? Do they not realize it can be turned on them with Soros?

      They’re seriously bad news.

      1. When ever they talk about campaign finance reform, they always say that we need it because people like the Koch Brothers can have a lot of influence. It’s bullshit. Progressives don’t hate that rich people donate to campaigns, they hate the fact that rich people they don’t like donate to campaigns.

        1. Idiot progressives don’t think they raise money from rich people when the data shows the rich support Democrats more than the GOP.

          1. Yep.

            And they don’t seem to realize that banning corporate speech means muzzling unions and non profits too.

  55. Maggie may need to come to terms with the reality that many women like and even prefer the male – cough, cough, well, you know.

    “You’re not fooling anyone, you know.”

  56. Why didn’t he just write a 2 word article, stating “Free Shit”, and save us all the time?

    1. ROFL, as the young folks used to say.

      But it would be “free shit for everyone.”

  57. I was a little surprised that the large majority of comments mocked the author and the article. Some hope for humanity? Nah.

    1. Why? It is childishly naive.

      The conservative version would be one of a theocratic oil kingdom with plenty of benes for the elderly and low wage poorly educated serfs emptying the bedpans of the privileged class.

      1. The conservative version would be one of a theocratic oil kingdom with plenty of benes for the elderly and low wage poorly educated serfs emptying the bedpans of the privileged class.

        So the conservative vision of the future is virtually identical to Barack Obama’s present? I mean, if you consider that Obama is the leftists God and we’re int he middle of an oil boom, virtually everything you wrote describes Barack Obama’s America.

        1. Not true. Many of our bedpan carriers are degree-holding Physical Therapy grads.

      2. Sounds like the third world to me. Aren’t you in favor of bringing the third world to America?

        1. The conservative wet dream is Saudi Arabia.

          Theocracy, no rights for women/gays, oil-based, low tax, and no real public education.

          ‘Santorum City’ has a nice ring to it.

          1. Lol. It must be frustrating for shreeek having to invent out of whole cloth arguments the polar opposite of the extremes that his ideological compatriots actually make.

            Wouldn’t it be nice if any other political philosophy actually had believers as retarded as yours does?

  58. Anyone play Starbound? Is it just another version of Minecraft?

  59. Another fake scandal in the making?

    Al-Qaida group says responsible for Beirut bombing

    http://onlineathens.com/breaki…..ut-bombing

    1. Does Media Matters pay you 50 cents every time you use the phrase “fake scandal” online, or what?

      1. Just hearing some wingneck reflexively blurt out ‘Benghazi’ or FASTANDFURIOS still cracks me up.

        I used to think maybe there was something to the Clinton fake scandals like Whitewater and Travelgate.

        Now I know the GOP is just fucking insane.

        1. Just hearing some wingneck reflexively blurt out ‘Benghazi’ or FASTANDFURIOS still cracks me up.

          That’s because you’re retarded.

        2. Palin’s Buttplug|1.4.14 @ 6:28PM|#
          “Just hearing some wingneck reflexively blurt out ‘Benghazi’ or FASTANDFURIOS still cracks me up.”

          Yeah, as a slimly Obo apologist, I’m sure any bit of honesty cracks you up.

          1. For Mr. Buttplug, “fake scandal” = “Democrat caught in wrongdoing.”

        3. Now I know the GOP is just fucking insane.

          Well, I can scarcely think of anyone with more first hand knowledge of the subject.

  60. I will say something abut Beatles music: they were te best fucking band ever Gillespie!

  61. Where in the fuck has Tony been?

    1. Who gives a shit?

      1. I sort of miss the dude’s stupidity. I’ve always wondered if he was a real person. I’ve met a lot of progressives in my time and they weren’t as stupid as he was.

        1. Tony is not stupid. He is just wrong. He gets what is wrong with the GOP but has no idea why progressives are wrong too.

  62. Too cool to admit the Beatles were good?

  63. “If I have to answer for Soviet gulags, these market/capital twits have to answer for climate collapse, the greatest genocide in history.”

    Genocide, I don’t think that word means what he thinks it means.

    1. At least he admitted that global warming is really about bashing capitalism.

      1. I just wanna hear his doozy of an answer for Soviet Gulags.

    2. Yikes.

      This might (mind you, I said “might”) have flown in 1914, when the risks of full on Communism were as much of a hypothetical as the risks of climate change are today. But it’s 2014, and we’ve seen the gulags, and the brutal suppression of political opposition, and the mass starvation, and all the rest.

      So, yes, supporters of communism have way, way more to answer for than the most stubborn global warming skeptic.

      If only Comrade Stalin knew about this, he’d have this idiot shot for discrediting the Revolution through unredeemable stupidity.

    3. It’s the greatest thing that’s yet to have happened.

  64. Saw on another forum a bunch of progressives patting each other on the back for an “Austrians are the creationists of economics” comment.

    Interesting to consider which worldview is most creationist the one that says evolution is always happening, cannot be stopped, works according to no plan and trying to plan it is foolish vs. the one that argues an “intelligent designer” than make all the bad things go away if we just DEMOCRACY and SCIENCE hard enough.

    They were also “debating” how this article isn’t communism, it’s just basic common sense and human decency. And how sad it is that the writer was being attacked as a communist on twitter.

    1. I don’t see how someone can be called a Communist just because everything he said is actually in the Communist Manifesto.

      It makes no sense to me.

      1. It’s not real communism because in real communism you can’t own anything as the concept doesn’t exist and you wouldn’t need to work because there’d be an endless surplus of goods!

        He’s still buying into the doomed capitalist mode of production!

      2. Why are you so mean spirited? TROLL!

    2. Cosmotarians are convinced that the human body evolved, but the brain did not.

      1. HUR DUR HI MERICAN

        1. He’s got you there, though. Nailed. Completely.

    3. “Interesting to consider which worldview is most creationist the one that says evolution is always happening, cannot be stopped, works according to no plan and trying to plan it is foolish vs. the one that argues an “intelligent designer” than make all the bad things go away if we just DEMOCRACY and SCIENCE hard enough.”

      And that bit of logic seems to be totally lost on proggies.

  65. “a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage

    1. Damn it, I’ve been doing it backwards!

      1. No wonder your soup tastes oily and your garages smells like chicken shit!

    2. Yeah, and look what happened when we got that–a bunch of clueless spoiled kids.

    1. Look, we can’t have the plebes realizing they can organize and create stuff without the government. That just wouldn’t do.

      Imagine the chaos if someone crowdfunded a private road!

      1. The mere mental image has paralyzed me with anxiety!

        A private company will build roads out of landmines and barbed wire!

        1. And use children as lane dividers while denying them a living wage.

    2. Can’t have the capital go to non-favored industries, can we?

    3. $39K is the high estimate, $12K the low estimate. And a portion of that money is the fee charged by the crowdsource website itself, which is not something the SEC is imposing.

      1. Double checking the charts, it’s even less than that — $39K is the estimate for raising $100-500K, not for $100K. The range for under $100K is $12-17K.

    4. Fortunately, according to the press release it only applies to using crowdfunding to sell securities:

      Crowdfunding describes an evolving method of raising capital that has been used outside of the securities arena to raise funds through the Internet for a variety of projects ranging from innovative product ideas to artistic endeavors like movies or music. Title III of the JOBS Act created an exemption under the securities laws so that this type of funding method can be easily used to offer and sell securities as well. The JOBS Act also established the foundation for a regulatory structure for this funding method.

      Projects on Kickstarter and the like don’t offer ownership stakes (IIRC, Kickstarter specifically disallows it) so they should not be affected, fortunately.

      SLD applies

    5. “unaccredited investors”, code for NOT TOP.MEN.

  66. The SEC wants to stifle innovation?

    Say it ain’t so.

  67. Another Colts TD!
    Down by 10.

    1. We need to put some teeth in these laws!

      1. By putting laws in the teeth?

  68. So what else is new? Guardian and the Rolling Stone calling for Communism, politico calling for dictatorship and Old Man Gillespie going on about the glories of his old fogey music.

    1. Of course how could I forget the whole nonsense that 1970s Britain was some utopia where greed was abolished and everyone was United and acting in the interests of the Common Good of the People.

  69. 2. Social Security for All

    Whether they want to be a part of it or not, presumably. Odd that this is presented as something Millenials should be pushing for when they’re the ones taking it in the fundament in that system.

    1. Millenials should fight for the right to loser their money in a ponzi scheme.

  70. https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_4223421

    Thus anyone is interpreted in the best light possible, anyone except conservatives and “racists,” (emphasis mine) of course.

    Gee I wonder who that could possibly be?

  71. It isnt just Rolling Stone that has turned into a proggie/commie rag. Somebody needs to sic Bailey on Scientific American.

    I used to love that periodical. The last time I picked up a copy and tried to read it some years back, it was sickening. It was written on a grade school level and nearly every article in that issue was cheerleading for some proggie cause, mostly global warming horse shit.

    1. Sadly true. At times there are more like Scientific Anti-American.

      1. As opposed to Billy “GOP” Graham?

        1. Jesus Christ, quit doing that. It’s retarded.

          1. Carter and Clinton were both secret Republicans, so I mean it totally makes sense

      2. I subscribed to SciAm from 1966. At first it was only anti-nuclear weapons zealotry, but their attitude drifted leftward with time, including environmental extremism, anti-capitalist poverty solutions, and eventually AGW. But that was long after I quit my subscription. Discover is only marginally better.

    2. I had a subscription to SciAm for probably 25 years. I even managed to keep my subscription going when I was unemployed. I finally gave it up a few years back when the articles became nothing but politics and the writing degraded to middle school levels.

      … Hobbit

  72. Since this seems to be the default weekend thread, here’s a question (prompted partly by MERICAN-troll):

    What do you all think of Takimag? I found it fairly recently and like it generally (mostly because I like McInnes and Jim Goad for giggles), but note that they have a pretty constant bug up their ass about Teh Jooz and the Islam Sharia and persecution of WASPs.

    I have no real grief with them, but find their commenter pool pretty rife with VDare loonies. Steve Sailer in particular I never liked for his stuff @ VDare, although he seems at least ‘diluted’ in the Taki stuff.

    Any readers of it out there? Just curious.

  73. What do you all think of Takimag? I found it fairly recently and like it generally (mostly because I like McInnes and Jim Goad for giggles), but note that they have a pretty constant bug up their ass about Teh Jooz and the Islam Sharia and persecution of WASPs.

    The stuff that doesn’t touch on race is fine. Their comment section is filled with racists and anti-semites. Most of their writers are also racists to some degree.

    1. I’ve seen this guy on Red Eye of times and he says some funny, offensive shit. It’s hilarious watching TV’s Andy Levy wince.

      Hopefully he is just trolling.

      1. e.g., this

        1. Red Eye has gotten irritating with Gutfeld’s indoctrination by the Five Fucks. But, that Joanne Nosuchinsky is one fine lady, not to mention has a nice pussy.

        2. That’s the Gavin McInnes I mentioned I read Taki for. He’s the co-founder of VICE magazine, which, for the years he was there (late 90s-2007), was an Anti-PC Bible, just generally fun. I’m fairly convinced his race-baiting bona-fides started off as just being irritated with liberal hypersensitivity and joking about it =

          http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09…..d=3&src=pm

          Few of Vice’s fans or customers seem to realize just how deeply hostile Mr. McInnes is to the liberal live-and-let-live ethos of traditional bohemian culture. It is a fair bet that a majority of the downtown population opposed the Iraq war and dislikes the policies of George W. Bush. But in an interview Mr. McInnes advocated changing New York license plates to read ”Liberalism Gone Amok.” Last month, he wrote an article for Patrick Buchanan in The American Conservative boasting of having converted Vice readers to conservatism. He actually leans much further to the right than the Republican Party. His views are closer to a white supremacist’s. ”I love being white and I think it’s something to be very proud of,” he said….

          Which he is! (aren’t we all?). But the resultant pearl-clutching by the NYT (and Rolling Stone, unsurprisingly) is really what his comments were about. Fucking uptight people in the skull.

          I doubt AMERICAN would give the guy any credit for being Proud White Man.

          1. Few of Vice’s fans or customers seem to realize just how deeply hostile Mr. McInnes is to the liberal live-and-let-live ethos of traditional bohemian culture.

            How on Earth can the New York Times claim that modern liberals have a ‘live-and-let-live’ ethos?

            1. How on Earth can the New York Times claim that modern liberals have a ‘live-and-let-live’ ethos?

              If you live how they want you to live, they let you live how they want you to live.

          2. “His views are closer to a white supremacist’s. ”I love being white and I think it’s something to be very proud of,” he said….”

            If that’s their best line for him being a white supremacist they don’t have much of a case. I don’t know anything about the guy but swap out white for whatever and you have a stock line for any other popular figure of minority racial politics.

          3. That’s the Gavin McInnes I mentioned I read Taki for.

            Oops. Sorry, I only read up to

            What do you all think of Takimag? I found it fairly recently and like it generally

          4. Joe Levy, the music editor of Rolling Stone, said: ”It’s always a disappointment when someone whose aesthetics are edgy and inclusive voices their politics and they’re exclusionary. But this is not someone who pretended to be anything other than an offensive, opinionated jerk. So when he turned out to be an offensive, opinionated jerk who wasn’t kidding, it wasn’t entirely shocking.”

            Wow. It’s amazing what pearl clutching adolescents the people at Rolling Stone have turned into. Let’s break this paragraph down.

            1. How is modern liberalism, filled as it is with petulant, whiny children, aging pseudoradicals, and white collar dorks in the media, in any way ‘edgy?’ If anything, the fact that they’re freaking out about McGinnis’ politics shows that McGinnis is the edgy one, and modern progressives are the establishment losers.

            2. Given that they’re in such a tizzy about McGinnis’ politics, these self-satisfied leftists have pretty much proven that they’re exclusionary, correct? That if you don’t have the ‘proper’ beliefs they will exclude you?

            So how can they then be so lacking in self-awareness that they call themselves inclusive?

            1. I note = that story was from 10years ago.

              And shit is pretty much the same today. If not worse. McInnes left Vice in 2007 and it has indeed drifted (particularly in its video product) much closer to a Hipster-flavored version of Progressive Liberal pop-culture rag.

              Example of their (non) insights into “Gun Culture” (warning: may make you want to punch the ‘journo’ punk)

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNZO30lPGm4

              They recently tried to re-invigorate some of their “Offensive Cred” with ‘pre teens telling dirty jokes’. (which I enjoy)

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC2HGFLBxoM

              The comments reveal how proggy the audience has become. Aghast, they are. “Un-cool!”

              1. Actually the really punchable guy was the guy mocking shooters in the “How to be a man” series, here

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGzQTdbx7I4

                @3mins

                its more just a beta male tourguide of things most people find normal, but he thinks is ‘strange’

              2. And shit is pretty much the same today. If not worse. McInnes left Vice in 2007 and it has indeed drifted (particularly in its video product) much closer to a Hipster-flavored version of Progressive Liberal pop-culture rag.

                Robert Conquest’s Second Law

    2. The writing is often very sharp and refreshingly iconoclastic. I don’t think the writers are racists by any fair use of the term, only in the modern, “those facts make someone uncomfortable” sense. There is more criticism of Israel and Jews than I’d go along with. The criticisms of Islam I’ve read there are fine by me. Overall, TakiMag passes my Lenny Bruce test: it’s provocative humor and commentary, not bigotry.

      1. ” I don’t think the writers are racists by any fair use of the term, only in the modern, “those facts make someone uncomfortable” sense.”

        Agreed, mostly. I think ‘racist’ is a stupid term and something people are not to be labeled as something independent of their statements/actions (although I think Sailer would probably embrace aspects of the term, as would AMERICAN)… its the hyperfocus on ‘race’ as the primary horizontal theme in @*#$& everything which is… I don’t know. Boring? They really do overdo it on a certain level.

        Gavin does it too, but at least he’s fucking funny

        Goad is good too

        http://takimag.com/article/the…..z2pOz3NOYv

  74. WHAT DID I SAY

  75. Damn, Indianapolis. KC doing a Houston Oilers impression.

  76. Damn, shot that one down. And a brilliant comment on music not being as important anymore that I never thought of. 🙂

  77. Porn star Jenna Jameson just got 4chan to do her dirty work for her

    Note that she did not trick them, it was tit* for tat.

    *pun intended

    1. She is just ugly.

      Of all the hot porn whores too. Sasha Grey, Inari Vachs, etc, Jenna became most famous.

      1. Nina Hartley is still #1 for me.

        1. Nina was never gorgeous but she was truly authentic.

          I met her at a party at the Man O War suite Vegas Ceaser’s Palace in the 90s. Pleasured my date side-by-side with her and another. True.

        2. Yeah I don’t like Jameson. I’d never heard of Vachs or Hartley, but from looking them up they’re not quite my style, either.

          Grey is good, though.

      2. IIRC Jameson became famous for being underage when she started her career. Also it was a lot easier to stand out as “the” porn star when the industry was small.

        1. I believe you are confusing Jenna Jameson with Traci Lords.

          Jenna was hot back in the day, but she has not aged well at all.

          1. Ah, you are correct about my confusion.

            I’m not a fan of the silicone enhancements so I never liked her at any age, but to each his own.

  78. I’ve done a lot of dumb things in my life, but the dumbest was becoming a Chiefs fan.

    1. You probably could not help it if you grew up in the NS/MO area.

      We are tribal. I am from GA and like the BirdBrains for some similar reason.

      1. No, it was a free choice. I was born in KC, but moved when I was 2 so I have no recollection from it. Became a Chiefs fan when I started learning football in the late 80’s/early 90’s living in Southern California.

        Worst. Decision. Ever.

        1. What made you decide on the Chiefs then?

          1. In part being born in KC, in part because they were consistently good back then, and in part because I played OLB in pop warner and Derrick Thomas was the player I most admired from a skill point of view.

        2. You know…

          There is no government dictate that requires you to remain a Chiefs fan. You could have a new favorite team every day if you choose. It’s okay. It’s just a game that has no bearing on your life whatsoever. The Chiefs won’t hold it against you. (pssst, *whispers* they actually don’t know or care who you are. shhhh)

          1. You obviously don’t understand the whole concept of being a fan of a sports team… we almost relish in the suffering, but feel entitled to bitch about it and tell people who act like assholes immediately after a devastating loss to fuck off.

            1. Well said. Rather than cut myself I watch the idiot Falcons lose.

            2. Yes, that was EXACTLY my point…

              I obviously don’t understand the whole concept of being a fan of a sports team. Nor do I understand why people worship celebrities. I just don’t get it.

              I’m broken or missing that gene or something.

              1. It gives you a sense of community and makes the games more interesting.

          2. Yeah, like me. I live in Montreal and pull for the Eagles.

            Would that be allowed in Communist America?

            1. Living in Montreal? I don’t see why not.

  79. Hysterically funny: millenials “fighting for” anything. And written by a Scotch drinker.

    1. “By a Scotch drinker.”

      What the fuck does that even mean?

  80. Bard College
    BA, Theater and Human Rights
    2004 ? 2008

    Well, there you go.

    1. You can get a lot of good jobs with a degree in Human Rights.

  81. Don’t worry–based on his LinkedIn page, it doesn’t look like he’ll be there long. 🙂

    BTW, he says he “wrote, produced, and directed politically salient theater pieces either from the classical cannon or building on classical themes and stories.” Classical cannon, indeed.

  82. I never really was influenced by rolling stone. I have a good indie station in Columbus and some other good alt and classic rock ones too.

    Thinks like pandora and spotify help to ID good new music but I fear that while there is good music, there are not that many great bands that can make many good albums and headline consistently entertaining shows.

  83. Compare and contrast: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..20203.html

    1. Draws a grand total of 3 commenters, one of which is our own Sloppy Inca.

  84. “WW2 was unarguably the defining event of the 20th century. The changes it wrought in American culture were played out in the 60’s and my generation of boomers are the outcome of that discontinuity.”

    War is the friend of government, and the largest war ever fought (and the largest PR effort to make it ‘wonderful’) gave us the largest governments ever forced upon populations.
    Fuck Hitler, Hirohito, FDR, Stalin and Churchill; every one of them.

    1. (Was Oingo Boingo ever featured in Rolling Stone? )

  85. Woke up, could not go back to sleep.

    This smug little douche made me think of something. Myerson reminds me of myself when I was 13. I designed a perpetual motion machine and it worked and no one could tell me any different.

    That is what socialism/communism/proggyism is, the perpetual motion machine of political philosophies. The only way you can buy into it is if you dont understand all the concepts involved. Either that or you are a cynical con-artist looking to sell a perpetual motion machine to people who dont understand all the concepts involved. And it doesnt work for exactly the same reasons.

    The real problem is that Myerson is not some smart ass kid doodling away on paper late at night. He wants is to force everyone else to build his machine at gun point.

  86. Rolling Stone is now truly petrified, hardened, sclerotic, calcified and mineralized. But, also true to it’s name, it has gathered nothing during its long downhill roll.

  87. The fact that they are badgering Bob Dylan for his opinion is de facto proof that they haven’t evolved at all. The analog is if they were badgering Rudy Vallee in 1969.

  88. In Soviet Russia, Rolling Stone you!

  89. Sadly Rolling Stone IS required reading if you want to understand what the younger generation cared about. And you can joke about an article that “even Raul Castro would be embarrassed to publish,” but every twenty years a whole new generation of mush heads is rolling off the public K-12 / American college assembly line that closed their minds back in the 1980’s (See Allan Bloom). They don’t know about Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot et al. If they DO know, they know–like their dumbassed “Maoist” parents turned Democrats–that those guys failed because they didn’t do it right.

    That anybody still reads or buys RS is as much of a negative cultural indicator as the swell of youth vote for Obama in 2008 and 2012. As long as the NEA runs our schools, every twenty years we are going to have to refute communism for a whole new generation of dunderhead kids. It’s like fucking sun spot cycles.

    1. The young people I know think Obama’s a big joke. He is not cool anymore. All is not lost.

  90. A legendaries music band.

  91. Rolling Stone was created to be a Music Industry Rag.
    It’s reason for existence was to hype Hollywood’s latest trends and sell them to the “Youth Culture” of the 60s and 70s.
    The way I remember it, if you bothered to read or quote Rolling Stone, you were considered a “poser”. A fake.
    ….
    I see some things at Rolling Stone never change. It still sux.

  92. Cant wait till my paper edition of the Rolling Stone arrives at home!
    I’m almost out of toilet paper!

  93. Nick, Rolling Stone never had a golden age. Of course it’s lefty garbage.

  94. “Because as much as unemployment blows, so do jobs…”

    Free blowjobs for everybody!

  95. Ahhh….Rolling Stone and their ilk.
    The good ole days of the late 60s.
    Flowers in our hair.
    We sat around the campfires in Topanga Canyon and plotted out our Nirvanna on Earth…a Utopian Society…full of tribal love and peace and drugs.
    Wow those were good drugs, too!
    Welp… then it was time to jump up and follow Charlie Manson to the top of the hill and slaughter some pigs and get this beautiful revolution started.

  96. Jon Krakauer’s “Into Thin Air,” his account of the disastrous 1996 climbing season on Mt Everest, notes that a significant number of people he encountered who were able to fork over the $50K fee for the trip were not serious climbers but rich people who were collecting life experiences.

    Among them was Jann Wenner. Krakauer recalls a conversation in which Wenner debates the merits of the Gulfstream V (1996 price $25 million +) vs. other personal aircraft.

    Liberal problems.

  97. For some reason, I received an entire year’s subscription to Rolling Stone in 2013 even though no one in my household signed up for it, and no misguided gift-givers came forward to take credit for this. I can only conclude that their readership is so abysmal that they’ve just resorted to mailing issues out to everyone in the 18-24 demographic.

    Also, the only time I bothered to open one of the issues resulted in my open-mouthed disgust while reading an article that painstakingly described the aesthetic of Chief Keef’s unfurnished mansion while striving for total sophistication and elegance of language. So, in conclusion, I agree with Gillespie. Rolling Stone will desperately chase around any celeb or “trendsetter”, no matter how dimwitted and vapid.

  98. It’s so sad. Most political issues are actually economics issues and most people with political opinions have no knowledge of, or interest in, economics. I can’t think of any other science that is treated this way. Any moron thinks he can weigh in on issues that require at least basic knowledge of economic science.

  99. Millionaires wouldn’t wish this on their children. For them to sit around all day complaining. Did you ever smoke some really good weed and every thought that you could squeeze into coherency seemed like some kind of revelation, like, water is wet and that is so profound! So this guy had to be really stoned or worse, he wasn’t.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.