Gas Explosion in Harlem, Obama to Change Overtime Rules, Ukraine's Head Visits U.S.: P.M. Links

|

  • She's the Green Party's problem now.
    Credit: monterey media / Foter / CC BY-SA

    At least two people were killed and more than a dozen injured when a a gas leak in Harlem caused an explosion that destroyed two buildings.

  • President Barack Obama reportedly will announce tomorrow that the federal government is expanding the number of salaried employees who qualify for overtime.
  • Ukraine's interim prime minister is visiting Washington, D.C., today as Crimea prepares for a secret referendum this weekend that will give voters a choice between joining Russia and breaking off as an independent state. Remaining part of Ukraine is not one of the choices.
  • Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer will not  try to run for a third term by challenging the applicability of the state's term limits. Brewer could have argued that she has not actually served two terms, because she took over as governor in 2009, when Janet Napolitano joined the Obama administration.
  • George Zimmerman' parents are suing Roseanne Barr for tweeting their home address, prompting them to go into hiding.
  • Glenn Ford, who spent 30 years behind bars and on death row in Louisiana for a murder he did not commit, is now a free man.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and don't forget to sign up for Reason's daily updates for more content.

NEXT: U.N. Report on Drone Strikes Calls for Clearer Global Norms and More Accountability

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. ‘ello, what’s all this then?

  1. These are early.

    Something, something, jury duty.

    1. I think someone failed at their DST switch.

      1. 2:30 PM EST 3:30 EDT

        Maybe they opened a new Reason HQ in Halifax

        1. Why not in the U.S. Virgin Islands?

          1. USVI or Halifax is on the on a 30-mins off time zone?

            I thought that was just India and few tiny other places.

            1. Not Halifax. Newfoundland is on a half hour time zone.

            2. Nope, Reason moved to St. John and the PM links were 4 minutes late. An alternative is that they moved to St. John‘s and were 26 minutes ahead of time.

            3. Dildo is -2:30 GMT

              Halfax is -3:00
              EDT= -4:00

              1. You idiots. Isn’t it obvious?

                SHACKFORD HAS WARTY’S FUTURECOCK!

              2. Thank you for that, SIV.

              3. I have been to Dildo.

  2. From this day on, the official language of San Marcos will be Swedish. Silence! In addition to that, all citizens will be required to change their underwear every half-hour. Underwear will be worn on the outside so we can check. Furthermore, all children under 16 years old are now. . .16 years old!

  3. SURPRISE ATTACK OF THE PM LINKS

    1. I thought I mistakenly took a two lunch break when I saw the links up

    2. I feel ambushed.

  4. Salaried employees who qualify for overtime.

    I heard this this morning and it still confuses me.

    This is a concept with which Im entirely unaware of.

    1. You are unfamiliar with the ways of the Farce.

      1. His Midiobamain levels are unusually low.

    2. My reaction exactly. Overtime? What’s that?

      1. My reaction exactly. Overtime? What’s that?

        It’s that thing I get 15-20 hours a week of, but don’t want.

      2. Overtime? What’s that?

        It’s that thing that, if forced upon your employer by the federal government, will cause them to cut back your hours, thus costing you potential income, and hurting your employer’s profitability, so everyone loses.

        1. But … but … intentions! That, and we should have a penaltax to keep the evil capitalists from abusing their workers like that.

        2. will cause them to cut back your hours, thus costing you potential income

          Yes, I’d hate to lose the income if my employer cut back on my unpaid overtime.

          1. Yes, I’d hate to lose the income if my employer cut back on my unpaid overtime.

            Do you not get that if they used to pay $455 a week for 50 hours and now can only get 40 hours for he same price – other things beyond “unpaid overtime” will go away… like the jobs themselves?

            & ditto what everyone else said – professional positions, those that pay “well” do not usually have any overtime allowances. And if you’re the entry level douche who complains about “unpaid overtime” you don’t need to worry about unpaid overtime anyway – as should that attitude get well known, the only jobs anyone will hire you for will have very defined lines as to what is over time and what is not.

            Unfortunately for you – they only have 30 hours a week to give you for at least the next few years.

            I mean seriously… WTF is unpaid overtime?

            If you sign a contract that says 40 hours minimum, no overtime pay, at X dollars a week/month/whatever – then paying overtime would simply be stealing from the employer and in direct violation of the contract.

            If you wanted overtime pay – don’t take any job that doesn’t offer it. Very simple.

            As a warning – those aren’t normally the good jobs which pay well – but live and let live I say. Do what you will – just know it will likely end badly and I have no plans of helping bail you out at the end of it.

            Disclaimer: after first question – the pronoun you is not meant to reflect any specific individual

    3. I have no way of knowing, but I’d bet that it’s an entirely familiar concept to anyone who works for the federal government. It just sounds like something I’d be surprised to find out the the government has been doing for decades.

    4. Exempt and non-exempt salaried employees are very much within the norm.

      1. To expand: If you are expecting your employees to work 40 hours a week and providing them PTO you agree on a base salary that they will receive. Otherwise, you can’t really pay them for not being there. However, if they make below a certain annual salary you must pay them at least their average hourly wage based on a 2080 hour year if they work more than 40 hours in a week (I think it is actually graduated such that if they make below X they must be paid like hourly employees — time and a half above 40, but above X you may pay them their hourly wage). Above that line, you may negotiate any deal you wish with your salaried employee.

        1. Huh. I thought non-exempt were all hourly wage earners. I guess I learned something today.

          1. The distinction is between non-exempt salaried and hourly.

          2. How you receive your salary technically has nothing to do with your exemption. You can be a professional who is exempt and get paid 50 bucks an hour.

            1. Well, there you go. I haven’t had very many different jobs and none required me to know how overtime works.

              1. I did not know the overtime rules were this complex. All I know is my boss makes me work however many hours of work there are to be worked and I get paid what I get paid. It’s not an hourly rate or a salary or piecework, it’s just whatever it is. If I don’t work, I don’t get paid and sometimes when I do work, I don’t get paid, either. And on top of that, my boss is an asshole.

                I wish I’d known all that before I agreed to be self-employed.

    5. What Brett said. I’m an exempt employee, meaning my company is exempt from having to follow most of the Department of Labor’s rules concerning employee compensation.

      I’m salaried, assuming a 40 hour work week, however it’s illegal for an employee to do work for a company and not get compensated for it. I have to go to the vice president of the company in order to get approved for overtime.

      According to HR, I’m only supposed to be approved for 90 days at a time, but I was approved for over a year and a half. 60+ hour work weeks for months at a time are no fun.

      1. According to Obama if you work for the .gov you are doing the lords work, so you get overtime on salary. (yes, yes, I understand the exempt/non-exempt, but I guarantee he’s just opening up the spigots for pay, just as he’s done with 100K+ gov drones while the rest of us private industry suckers bust our ass to pay those salaries).

        1. So does this mean teachers and other pub secs will be getting even more from their local taxpayers?

          1. Teachers would have to work some hellishly long days to get to 2080 hours, when they only work 180 days a year.

      2. I’m exempt. So if I work 35hrs I must use PTO to pad it up to 40. If I don’t have any PTO left I get paid for 35hrs. If I work 40hrs I get paid for 40hrs. If I work 45hrs I get paid for 40hrs. If I work for 50hrs I get paid for 40hrs.

        Needless to say, I don’t work a minute over 40. Why should I? No one in the company has gotten a raise in three years. Meanwhile my taxable income has gone down four grand thanks to rising health insurance costs because of the Affordable Health Care Act.

        Still, it beats being unemployed.

        1. Yep, that’s how I’m paid, but we have an exception. If we’re working on a big project, we can be approved for an Extended Work Week(EWW) so we can be paid for more than 40 hours a week as a salaried employee.

          It’s also illegal for management to tell us to work more than 40 hours a week, so there’s a lot of “Well, the deadline is *this* , we have all these things to do, and these are the consequences if the things aren’t done….Gee, I wonder how this is going happen…”

          Historically, I’ve worked much more than 40 hours a week just because I hate losing and I really liked the team that I worked with. Now, I’m realizing that I need to be much more selfish. I’ve recently had a falling out with my team lead and my manager, so I’m not sticking my neck out for anybody and not doing more than I have to.

          1. It’s also illegal for management to tell us to work more than 40 hours a week,

            We’ve had many groups working mandatory overtime off and on for the last 5 years. I don’t see how it can be illegal.

            1. I’m with a government contractor, so we have to abide by some employment rules that private industry might not.

              However, I had a friend at Lockheed who had to work mandatory overtime…

              It also might be written into the company’s contract, i.e. you’re salaried and we own you for 40 hours a week and we can’t make you work more than that.

            2. Exempt employees can make any deal they want with their employers, including ones that allow them to be called in for mandatory work. As JEP says, certain government contracts may prevent this, especially for staff augmentation positions. Hopefully you and other members of those groups priced the potential for mandatory overtime into your contracts. I know I figured that I would work 6-10 50-60 hour weeks a year and travel another 6 weeks a year when I took my last position, and made sure it was okay. In my industry (IT consulting) we mostly get a bribed with a billability bonus that kicks in if you bill more than X% of a 40 hour week. I routinely return over 100% billable. And they will laugh at your dumb ass if you’re recording 50+ hours when you only have 20 hours of billable work (unless you’re in sales). Then fire you and/or your boss.

          2. I’ve never been asked to work more than forty, though I could if I wanted. They wouldn’t mind. They bill the government for my hours over forty and pay me zip.

        2. Hell yeah to being ununemployed.

    6. Non-exempt salaried employees should be over time.

      From very dim memories.

      You have a base salary of $500 per week and you work 40 hours, you get paid $500.

      Next week, you work 50 hours, so 10 hours must be paid an additional half time. So you made $500 to work 50 hours, so $10 per hour that week so you are entitled to another 10 hours of pay at $5 per hour. Total pay for that week becomes $550.

      So non-exempt, salaried employees are not the same as hourly employees and are still a big discount even when you have to pay them overtime.

      1. And there is another set of rules for piece-part workers that put in more that 40 hours in a week.

      2. Plus the treasury would get more tax dollars!

      3. If that’s they way it works, then I agree with you the impact may be minimal over all….

        Though note that this is Obama’s TriFecta of Economy Killing Ideas – as this is one tax increase on businesses, the other increase regulations on everything, and the last – more tax increases by removing “loopholes” for some, and just raising taxes on others.

        Add the minimum wage and its side effects to the broader economy and sure, this particular deal isn’t that bad.

        And after being hit in the head with a baseball bat, being punched very hard in the gut 20 times isn’t a big deal either.

        Meaning: you add all these new penalties together and pretty soon you have a significant impact on the economy.

        Not sure what this exactly foretells, but it doesn’t look….

  5. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer will not try to run for a third term by challenging the applicability of the state’s term limits. Brewer could have argued that she has not actually served two terms, because she took over as governor in 2009, when Janet Napolitano joined the Obama administration.

    If its good enough for New York…

    1. Good, Brewer sucks.

      1. Yes, but her replacement will be chosen by AZ voters.

        You know, the jackholes who elected Janet Napolitano and Jan Brewer.

        1. Don’t forget Ev Mecham.

        2. …ugh. Yes, that is unfortunately true.

        3. And decades of McCain.

  6. Luxembourg kills EU tax haven crackdown

    European Union finance ministers failed once again Tuesday to agree on a sweeping new policy to fight tax evasion because of resistance from Luxembourg, a tiny country that long has prospered from a secretive banking culture.

    [A] tiny country that long has prospered from a secretive banking culture, as though that were a bad thing.

    1. [A] tiny country that long has prospered from a secretive banking culture, as though that were a bad thing.”

      Tell me about it!

    2. Just like gun control – even if completely illegal in Chicago/NYC/other places to own any guns most useful for self-defense, that’s not good enough.

      Why not?

      START PROG POLITICIAN

      Because all those other places, which foolishly and against all common sense, still allow psychotic, under-developed, insecure, and small men to purchase such unnecessary killing machines which eventually migrate into and corrupt our local community.

      & trust us – we really, really tried to ban all guns in our fair city, but it isn’t working.

      Despite our very best efforts, and with the very best of intentions, these lawless and irrational regions of our country is allowing our citizens to kill themselves in record numbers.

      Add to this the fact that people today don’t really need guns, the only common sense answer to this shared problem is to restrict gun ownership nation wide.

      I know some people won’t like it, but let’s be honest. City folk have far more intimate knowledge on why guns are evil than country folk. Not to mention that when compared to rural areas, urban areas are more important, more necessary, and filled with smarter people and more successful people (better looking too).

      Gun Control Now!

      The only common sense solution.

      /START PROG POLITICIAN

    1. Still on Standard time, eh?

      1. In that case, he’s 4 minutes late.

        1. Just rejoice that they are early.

          I swear, you idiots would slam the door in a free hooker’s face.

          1. Oh I certainly would if she…

            *scrolls to the top of the page*

            …looks like that.

          2. If it’s free is it a hooker? /steeples fingers in thought.

  7. Forget to turn your timepiece forward, Shackford?

    1. You mean, “Forgot to have your orphans set your gold pocketwatch forward, my good man?”

      *adjusts monocle*

    2. Okay kids, if someone forgot to set their watch FORWARD one hour, what time would it be reading?

      1. Don’t feel bad if you don’t know the answer, kids. Only 8% of respondents actually get this question right.

  8. Grand Island Student Suspended For NRA T-Shirt

    The parents of a Grand Island High School sophomore confirm their son was recently made to serve a one day in-school suspension, resulting from his refusal to change clothes after a determination the shirt he was wearing violated the school’s dress code.

    Wayne and Kim Kinney describe their son Shane, 16, as an avid outdoorsman and hunter.

    Shane, like his parents, is also a member of the National Rifle Association (NRA).

  9. SoCons Featured Libertarians In CPAC Panel…To Show How Bad They Are

    “CitizenLink President Tom Minnery hosted a panel titled ‘Can Libertarians and Social Conservatives Ever Get Along?’ this past weekend at our nation’s largest conference for conservatives.

    Minnery hosted the panel to give attendees an overview of some of the major differences between libertarians and social conservatives.

    ‘I wanted people to see and to know that the Libertarian Party is quite a bit radical when you think of the positions on certain issues, such as marriage,’ he said. ‘One of the points I made at our panel discussion was to remind people that the Libertarian Party wants to erase that little government document called the marriage license. They want ‘We the People’ to be out of the business of recognizing as married or unmarried. That’s a social travesty. I don’t think a lot of people know that about Libertarians, and I wanted to underscore that point.’

    Minnery was hoping that those who attended the discussion realized that ‘freedom does not merely mean chaos…Freedom means people ought to do what they ought to do”

    http://www.citizenlink.com/201…..ervatives/

    1. Can Libertarians and Social Conservatives Ever Get Along?

      I get along with progressives and neocons. The basic premise seems crazy to me.

    2. the Libertarian Party wants to erase that little government document called the marriage license.

      A point Tonio refuses to acknowledge. Or somehow, that doesnt count.

      1. I don’t think a lot of people know that about Libertarians

        Im not sure how many libertarians know that about libertarians (small or large L).

        1. +1 Reality check – l’s are human too…

      2. Rob, I think you have a perfectly reasonable view on marriage. But you dismiss the equal protection argument too easily.

        1. But you dismiss the equal protection argument too easily.

          If my view were adopted, we would have equal protection.

          Even with gay marriage we dont, as first cousins and polygamists are still being discriminated against.

          The *only* way to eliminate unequal protection in marriage is too get the state out of it.

          I think I am the only one properly considering equal protection.

          1. Also, as I said in a thread some months ago, liberty is superior to equality.

            Equality is only an issue if liberty stays constant. I dont care how much more equality some change leads to if liberty decreases.

            1. liberty is superior to equality

              Can’t really argue with that. Particularly if you are talking about material equality. But without equality under the law, liberty within a state is not very likely.

              I say give a marriage license to any group of people who want to say they are married. Maybe that would convince people beyond libertarian weirdos that perhaps we should lose the marriage laws.

          2. In a way I suppose you are.

            Doesn’t matter anyway. Gay marriage is a thing now. And marriage licenses are likely to be abolished sometime around when heroin is legalized no matter what you or I think.

            1. In a way I suppose you are.

              The right way. And no need to suppose it, it is true.

              No need to waffle, I wont call you a homophobe. Tonio might though.

              1. Careful, now. If you really push me to go to my principles I might go all anarchist on you.

                1. Thats fine, anarchy is self-defeating.

                  I can ignore anarchist arguments easily.

                  1. I still maintain that any truly principled libertarian must be an anarchist at heart.

                    And don’t mistake me for some silly person who thinks that anarchy is some achievable goal. I mostly agree with you about the self defeating part (though I’d put it a little differently, that governments spontaneously happen with any sufficiently large group of people). I just don’t think government can really be morally justified and that the rule of law is at best an illusion.

                    1. the rule of law is at best an illusion

                      The rule of law is a continuum rather than an absolute, much like “tallness” or “longevity”. Doesn’t mean such concepts are meaningless, and one would immediately see the use of rule of law after visiting the Eastern Bloc or Venezuela.

                  2. And really, what is a minarchist except for an anarchist who admits that some sort of government is probably inevitable?

                  3. But not mine, apparently.

                    1. That was for robc in response to his comment that he could easily ignore anarchists’ arguments.

                    2. Your comments have some basis in reality.

      3. No, I acknowledge that. I believe I have done so in the past but don’t have perfect memory and am too lazy to check. You are welcome to do so, if you are so disposed.

        But I do note that a static policy platform is different than actively working toward a goal.

        1. But I do note that a static policy platform is different than actively working toward a goal.

          This was my point above.

          That is bullshit.

          A static policy platform is active, because that is what fucking candidates are running on.

          And none of the LP platform is very static anyway. Any part that is is so fucking obvious that even libertarians cant disagree about it.

          1. Its a huge goalpost moving event for you. Every time I point out a person or group that is opposed to marriage licensing, you find some lame reason that doesnt count.

            Just admit you were wrong.

            1. What I have maintained all along is that I’m unconvinced by on-paper stances. I’d be much more convinced by an active, organized effort to get the state out of marriage. Such an effort would involve lobbying, introducing legislation, advertising, editorials, etc. None of that exists.

              Now, in contrast there is an active, well-financed effort to prevent states from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Curious how those people are active, organized, and have gotten laws passed.

              What this really comes down to, robc, is that you are obsessed with what I think. That’s sad, and a bit creepy.

              1. My posts are not on paper.

                Other than introducing legislation, which as a non-legislator I dont have the ability to do, all of those happen by me.

                you are obsessed with what I think

                You were the one asking repeated personal questions about my maritial status. Who is obsessed with who?

                1. And I never claimed that the anti-same-sex-marriage licensing people werent BETTER organized.

                  But it isnt a competition.

                  One point disproves your absolute statement.

                  1. And I never claimed that your opinion on NOM or other organizations mattered to me or anyone else.

                    What I did claim is that for me the absence of a large, organized and effective movement opposed to state-sanctioned marriage left me unconvinced. Got that? It left me unconvinced. And that is what bothers you, that I remain unconvinced by a few outliers like you, and a few policy statements, in light of organizations like NOM which are perfectly fine with state marriage as long as the homos are excluded.

                    1. large, organized and effective movement

                      Neither large nor effective was in the original post that started this argument last year.

                      And its easy to organize the individual.

                    2. It left me unconvinced.

                      Unconvinced of what? That my position is morally superior to yours? Because that is the only important question. And that isnt based on size or organization or effectivity of the movement.

                2. You were the one asking repeated personal questions about my maritial status. Who is obsessed with who?

                  That’s an inaccurate description. I challenge you to produce examples.

                  What I did do is question how you could be against state marriage for everyone, yet planned to take advantage of that yourself. I wasn’t concerned with your marital status, but rather with your hypocrisy and I called you out on that.

                  1. You still driving on roads?

                    1. Or, to be more on topic, when the new Ohio River bridge gets built in Louisville, I will drive across it.

                  2. What I did do is question how you could be against state marriage for everyone, yet planned to take advantage of that yourself.

                    Not originally. Originally, you asked me, in multiple threads, about my marital status, without any background as to why (although I correctly guessed why). As this was before I was engaged, I had no actual plans to take advantage of it.

                    1. OK, robc, now that you’ve jogged my memory I do remember asking you repeatedly about your marital status during a roughly one-hour period several months ago. The context was that you had posted something opposing all state marriage, and I posted a reply asking if you were yourself married. You didn’t respond to that question, even though you had posted several other comments after making your initial post. I posted the same question multiple times within a brief period to make absolutely sure you had seen the question. And IIRC I provided context by referencing that my question (posted multiple time, but still one question) was in response to a post you had recently made. I did that because I suspected you wanted to avoid answering the question as is your right. You were angry then at being asked the question, and you continue to be angry that someone would accuse you of hypocrisy in this matter.

                      Shorter: You were right.

                    2. Now, having said that, let me remind you that my memory is not perfect (as I have said to you in the past, and I am not unique in this regard), and that you have ignored all my requests for links to help me jog my admittedly imperfect memory.

                      Also, I have no trouble ignoring individual questions which I find to be without merit, or posters (ie, The ‘Plug) who are consistently dishonest or who I consider a waste of my time. Nothing is stopping you from ignoring me, except you.

                      I let the matter of your marital status and hyprocrisy drop as I had proved my point to my own satisfaction (and that of several other commenters). You, OTOH, continue to obsess about what I think and what you claim I have said.

    3. How’d that work out for him?

    4. One of the points I made at our panel discussion was to remind people that the Libertarian Party wants to erase that little government document called the marriage license.

      That’s funny, if I search ‘Gay Marriage’ here at Reason, there’s just a bunch of articles extolling the latest Anti-traditional marriage ruling.

      It’s not until you get to the comments section that someone points out that everyone or no one should be getting married.

      And most of the time that person is being called homophobe for saying it.

      1. That’s funny, if I search ‘Gay Marriage’ here at Reason, there’s just a bunch of articles extolling the latest Anti-traditional marriage ruling.

        Reason is a libertarian (small-l) publication, not an organ of the Libertarian Party (big-l).

        It’s not until you get to the comments section that someone points out that everyone or no one should be getting married.

        Not quite. What you see is a vigorous debate about whether the state should issue marriage licenses to same-sex couple, polygamists and cousins. With side discussions about how the state should be out of the marriage business altogether. Nobody is advocating for anyone to marry, or not marry.

        And most of the time that person is being called homophobe for saying it.

        So, happy.formal, what’s the actual percentage? How many discussions did you review to develop those figures?

        1. So, happy.formal, what’s the actual percentage? How many discussions did you review to develop those figures?

          Did I miss something? Did a writer for Reason suggest that, rather than battling out gay marriage state by state, bolstering the 14th Am. and the CRA by tearing down the 1st, 9th, and 10th Am. that the Fed. Gov. just get out of the marriage business all together?

          I must’ve missed it. The most I’ve seen is some suggestion that, if we’re gonna include gays, we need to rethink public accommodations. If only they linked a bunch of previous articles on the topic to any given article…

          1. Why, yes, m.c, you did miss something – the point.

            I was asking you, m.c, to produce evidence for your claim that most of the time that person [opposing extension of state marriage to same-sex couples] is being called homophobe for saying it.

            “Most” an actual meaning- greater than half. For you believably make such an assertion you’d have to have some, you know, actual numbers and stuff, and tally them up. So, whats the sample size and what’s the actual percent? Get figuring, Man (or Woman).

      2. I think you are seeing contradiction where there is none.

    5. Can’t I be a socon and a libertarian? I just don’t want the gov enforcing behavioral laws and I’m fine with my marriage being through the Church only.

      I also believe two parent families are best for kids and talk to my kids about being good Christians.

      Will HnR excommunicate me?

      1. No, but Bo will.

        Apparently you cant be a prude and pass his purity test.

        Which is kinda ironic.

      2. Can’t I be a socon and a libertarian?

        No. To be a real socon, you must support state regulation of social behavior.

        Will HnR excommunicate me?

        No.

        1. To be a real socon, you must support state regulation of social behavior.

          Are you sure?

          By that definition, most (all?) progressives are socons.

          1. That’s one of the reasons the socon’s natural home is the Democrat Party.

          2. I think the support of regulation of social behavior is a necessary, but not sufficient condition to be called a socon. The socons are the ones who want the regulation to promote traditional values and notions of good behavior.

            A lot of supposed left/progressive stuff could be pretty accurately called reactionary conservative. E.g. radical environmentalism and “cultural appropriation” bullcrap.

          3. The difference being that progs aren’t conservative. Social Conservatives are.

            The “you don’t approve of” part of…”To be a real socon, you must support state regulation of social behavior you don’t approve of”…was implied in the original post, as I thought it was a given.

      3. You can personally be SoCon all you want. But when most people refer to SoCons, they mean those who are politically socially conservative and think government is an appropriate tool to use to get more two parent families and good Christian children.

        1. I used to think some of that regulation was necessary, but then realized it’s only because the gov has become big daddy to all those societal failures.

          Unfortunately I think we’re getting lots of societal failures and lots of gov support for them – but more gov is not the answer (as you all know)

          1. The best anti-socon argument i heard came from a pastor. He was insulted that people would give up their control of their religion to a government. His biggest point was God and the participants marry, no government allowed.

      4. Can’t I be a socon and a libertarian?

        In my view, no. But only because SoCon is generally a term used specifically in political contexts.

        It’s splitting hairs between being a SoCon and a social conservative. The former is a label used in politics, the latter a phrase to describe one’s personal belief structure.

        1. Okay. I’m the second one – the guy who goes to church but believes in maximum civil (and economic) liberty.

    6. They want ‘We the People’ to be out of the business of recognizing as married or unmarried.

      No, just the government. I don’t think anyone objects to the people recognizing people as married. The idea that the government is the people is just toxic and makes people stupid.

    7. “freedom does not merely mean chaos…Freedom means people ought to do what they ought to do”

      Both the left and the right have perverted ideas of what freedom means.

    8. Freedom means people ought to do what they ought to do

      *facepalm*

    9. You forgot to post the part where he describes in detail how that social travesty would actually be a bad thing, the actual ill effects. Oh, and the part after he made his sensational revelation where he details the libertarian position….the free association and equal protection part.

    10. Fuck Tom Minnery and his State issued preferences

    11. First, whenever we have a same sex marriage thread many paleos show up with one defining point: ‘these gays want the government to hand them out a certificate!’ Now when I post this SoCon leader saying not only that explicitly, but doing so while calling out libertarians specifically, there is strangely not much rustling from most of these same paleos.

      Second, imagine if this post were about a progressive organization head, say the leader of the SEIU or NOW, organizing a panel and putting libertarians on it and saying ‘I wanted to include them so that people can see how radical their ideas are, how they actually do not want government involved in X, and what a social travesty that is.’ There would be about fifty posts repeating how evil and stupid the ‘progs’ were. Here there is nearly a collective ‘meh’ (amazingly several try to turn this into an attack on ‘cosmotarians!’).

      Wow.

      1. The links were early, and even before your ridiculous “gotcha” there were a dozen posts talking about how ridiculous this is. It’s hard to treat you like anything but a troll when you post such trollish bullshit.

        1. A dozen? Robc and madcasual used the comment as a springboard to attack…Reason (cosmotarians). Suthenboy offered up a defense of the SoCon. Root Boy asked why can’t he be a libertarian and a SoCon.

          Zeb, Camping, Francisco, Juice and BiMon offered libertarian criticisms.

          Compare that to the response the leftist goofball who called out libertarians about ‘street lamps’ got infra.

          1. I attacked reason?

            Can you give me the time of that post?

            My first response to your post was to attack the basic concept that politics somehow prevents people from getting along. I think I attacked the organizer.

          2. The ‘street lamps’ thing was infinitely stupider than some SoCon dipshit admitting he wanted to show off how terrible libertarians are.

          3. “Suthenboy offered up a defense of the SoCon. ”

            No I did not. Just the opposite. Try again.

    12. Freedom means people ought to do what they ought to do

      Freedom is a tautology?

  10. I liked her TV show (at the time anyway), but fuck Roseanne Barr, yo. I am still amazed by the willful ignorance that people display about the whole Trayvon Martin thing. You truly need to actively avoid any facts about the case to still think it has anything to do with stand your ground laws.

    1. Even if you think Zimmerman should be on death row, what the fuck do his parents have to do with the case?

      1. Indeed. Even worse than the willful ignorance is the blind and irrational hate and spite.

    2. You truly need to actively avoid any facts about the case to still think it has anything to do with stand your ground laws.

      Or racism.

        1. Or vigilantism, or the dangers of gun ownership.

    3. C’mon, this is the same woman who recovered memories of her father molesting her when she was only a few months old.

      The person to scold here is the one who gave her any kind of platform from which to be heard.

      1. Or the person who reinforced the platform so it could actually support her.

      2. And the people who think that washed out entertainers are worth listening to on political matters.

    4. I liked her TV show (at the time anyway)

      It was actually a well-written, working-class counterpoint to the Cosby Show for the first 2-3 years. It went off the rails right about the time Tom Arnold started banging her and she gained more control over the writing process. Then it became more about her projecting her daddy/mommy issues into the scripts and turning the whole series into a typical feminist man-bashing-fest.

      John Goodman should be granted sainthood for putting up with her bullshit for as long as he did.

      1. The Coen Brothers put him in nearly every one of their movies. That’s close enough for any mortal being.

  11. from the first PM Link:

    One option for the administration would be to hike the federal threshold to somewhere between $550 and $1,000 per week, and perhaps set it to rise automatically with inflation. California and New York already have set state thresholds of $640 per week and $600 per week, respectively, with the caps set to rise to $800 per week and $675 per week in 2016.

    so someone like me, who would exceed this threshold, could potentially make less money than someone close to the top of the threshold, even if we put in the same overtime? great.

    1. er, second link. Damn weird day.

    2. Yeah. I also found that as a 1099 contractor, my employer was much more likely to consider 40 hours a hard ceiling than co-workers who were regular employees. Also, you and your company are free to come to any sort of bonus structure you like for hours worked or billed above 40 per week if your base salary is above the threshold.

  12. “George Zimmerman’ parents are suing Roseanne Barr for tweeting their home address, prompting them to go into hiding.”

    ??

    in the last few days I’ve seen maybe a half-dozen examples of just the shittiest, most unbelievable behavior by “open minded and tolerant and morally superior” liberals…. where they turn into frothing, hate-ridden, foul-mouthed monsters wishing death by fire to all their perceived ‘enemies’

    They love to sit around and go, “YEAH!! THOSE ‘OTHERS’ ARE SUCH CUNTBAG FUCKTARD UNCULTURED ASSHOLE-SHITBRAINS TOTALLY UNLIKE US, WHO ARE WELL-BEHAVED *THINKING PEOPLE*…”

    Its really not fucking funny. “Rosanne Barr” thinks its cool to out someone’s *parents* to potential “justice-seeking” hatemongers? Did no one suggest that maybe that sort of thing was ‘crossing a line’? No?

    1. “Rosanne Barr” thinks its cool to out someone’s *parents* to potential “justice-seeking” hatemongers?”

      I’m in total agreement, but this is Rosanne Barr.
      I can’t recall anyone even suggesting that the distasteful blimp ever had an inkling of decency. Consider her Tony with more fame; sleazy doesn’t begin to describe her ‘ethics’.

    2. Well behaved women rarely make Buzzfeed,

  13. You’re more than an hour early! I wasn’t prepared!!!

    1. Be fair. You wouldn’t have been prepared in any event.

    2. You should maintain a state of cat-like readiness at all times.

      1. Cat-like? Meh.

      2. Sitting around licking his own ass? Great for him if he’s that flexible, I suppose.

        1. But can you go from licking your own ass to running up the stairs at 50 MPH in 0.2 seconds?

  14. President Barack Obama reportedly will announce tomorrow that the federal government is expanding the number of salaried employees who qualify for overtime.

    Part-time jobs for everybody! Yeah!

    Let’s parteeeeEE!

    1. It’s just more “you” time to pursue your dreams!

  15. Messi vs. Ag?ero. With the recent form of Bar?a I think there is still hope for a City upset.

  16. Folding paper microscope could reduce number of malaria deaths.
    FTA:
    Known as the Foldscope, the device can be assembled on site by the user in just a few minutes, from flat-packed components. It’s made almost entirely of cardstock paper, with the exception of its poppy seed-sized spherical lens. The lenses are in fact actually a type of abrasive grit, used to round off the rough edges of metal parts.
    Materials-wise, each microscope is worth about 50 cents. Using them is fairly simple ? as Stanford describes it:
    “A sample is mounted on a microscope slide and wedged between the paper layers of the microscope. With a thumb and forefinger grasping each end of the layered paper strip, a user holds the micro-lens close enough to one eye that eyebrows touch the paper. Focusing and locating a target object are achieved by flexing and sliding the paper platform with the thumb and fingers. Because of the unique optical physics of a spherical lens held close to the eye, samples can be magnified up to 2,000 times.”

    1. Looks cool – like a typical save the world/kickstarter/free shoes projects (didn’t Nathan Myrvold pay for a laser mosquito killer?) that ignore the obvious – kill the fuckers with DDT

  17. OK, listen up! New DRUG SCARE!
    “Warning on ‘DOC’ drug after Mountain View teen overdoses”
    […]
    “A Mountain View high school student found unresponsive on a trail apparently overdosed on a new street drug,”
    http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/…..310961.php

    I’m sure the pharmacologic test results are conclusive, having been 24 hours by now.

    1. We should just ban organic chemistry, all it does is give evil drug lords new substances to poison our innocent, impressionable youth with. “If it saves one child…”

      1. “If it saves one child…”

        And if you read the comments, that meme is common.
        At least some point out that the WoDs *didn’t* save this kid, assuming the claim is correct.

        1. AFAIK, LSD is pretty hard to get a hold of (notwithstanding certain suspicious stories about Wal-mart meat) thanks to the WoDs. If the kid HAD taken LSD, wouldn’t it be a lot less like to have put him into a catatonic state?

          Insert standard kids shouldn’t do drugs disclaimer, etc.

          1. Where did you see he was catatonic? It sounds like he was found passed out.

            1. You are correct, I shouldn’t conflate catatonic and unresponsive.

      2. The more natural chemical reactions that go on in the human body that are outlawed the better is what I always say.

        And making organic chemistry illegal would pretty much cover em all.

        1. The periodic table should be classified…only appropriately cleared people should have access.

    2. “She OD’d on rainbow party bath salt butt-chugging!”

    3. It is unheard of for someone to have a stroke or aneurysm or heart attack or heart rupture or anaphylactic shock from a bite or sting or energy bar with peanuts in it while hiking.

      unpossible!!!

      1. diabetic comas are also impossible while hiking.

      2. Diabetic comas make boring headlines.

  18. Now it’s serious…

    Beer shipments stuck at Port Metro Vancouver due to truck strike

    Now, some in the hospitality industry say the transportation of popular beers has also come to a halt, with shipments stuck in containers at the port.

    In order to compensate, several bars have been saving their supply of Guinness, ahead of St. Patrick’s Day festivities.

  19. The CFTC is considering regulating Bitcoin

    The U.S. derivatives regulator is studying whether it should regulate electronic currencies such as bitcoin, its chief said on Tuesday, as regulators across the globe start taking the emerging technology more seriously.

    “We are looking into that,” Mark Wetjen, acting chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, told journalists after giving a speech at an industry conference. “It’s been initiated, there’s been an internal discussion at the staff level.”

    There’s more anonymity with the use of cash that is held inside a paper brown bag than with Bitcoin.

  20. George Zimmerman’ parents are suing Roseanne Barr for tweeting their home address, prompting them to go into hiding.

    Roseanne Barr actually makes me feel sorry for Tom Arnold.

    1. Imagine her agent!

    2. He bought his ticket. He knew what he was getting into.

      1. To be fair, she is a naked singularity of batshit crazy. Everything looks OK from a distance, until you pass the beyond Schwartzbarr Radius.

        By then, it’s too late.

  21. Elephants are racist and sexist.

    Our results demonstrate that elephants can reliably discriminate between two different ethnic groups that differ in the level of threat they represent, significantly increasing their probability of defensive bunching and investigative smelling following playbacks of Maasai voices. Moreover, these responses were specific to the sex and age of Maasai presented, with the voices of Maasai women and boys, subcategories that would generally pose little threat, significantly less likely to produce these behavioral responses.

    1. Our results demonstrate that elephants can reliably discriminate between two different ethnic groups that differ in the level of threat they represent

      The Supreme Court should immediately step in to impose equal-time on these dastardly racist and sexist elephants! Women and children should be stomped on just as equally as men, for godssake!

    2. Elephants are racist and sexist.

      Research finally proves what the Dems have been saying for decades!

    3. meerkats are as well.

    4. Obviously we have to get Maasai women to threaten elephants in equal numbers to Maasai men. The glass ceiling must be broken!

      1. Maasai men, when hunting elephants, should just talk in high voices.

  22. Further proof that Americans are as economically illiterate as Tony

    Sixty-nine percent of Americans, including 45 percent of Republicans, support the president’s call to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10 over the next three years. Twenty-eight percent of poll respondents oppose such action.

    1. Further proof that the Constitution is a really good idea!

      1. Further proof that the Constitution is a really good idea!

        “You’re doing a helluva job, Connie.”

    2. Further proof that Americans are as economically illiterate as Tony

      … and as my Facebook f[r]iends. I need better Facebook friends.

      1. I need better Facebook friends.

        No, you need to uninstall.

  23. Bless me, fellow wreckers, for I have sinned. I’ve never confessed to anyone as dissolute as you people, but there’s a first time for everything.

    I voluntarily signed up to see Nancy Pelosi speak in person in two weeks time. My actions were motivated by the desire to send a friendly signal to the legion of progressives who unfortunately surround me.

    What is to be my penance?

    1. Having to hear Mushmouth slur out a nonsensical rant is punishment enough.

      Take pics.

    2. I think actually hearing her speak is pretty punishing in and of itself.

    3. Try not to be overcome by Pelosi’s raw sexual charisma.

    4. You’ll pay your penance by having to listen to that POS and her sycophantic audience.

    5. “What is to be my penance?”

      Sometimes wife and I will venture to the Bay shoreline. Occasionally, we stop prior to arriving there; either the tide is out, or Pelosi’s in town.
      ‘You don’t have to look, and you don’t have to see. You can feel it in your olfactory’.
      Loudon Wainright III

      1. “East Indian Princess” is my fav by LW3.

    6. After the talk, go up to get her autograph on the ‘original’ ACA. After she signs, pull out one with the first revision, and ask her to sign that. Repeat 28 times. Tell her you want at least one of her signatures to be on the actual law.

      1. Nobody can carry that much paper.

    7. What is to be my penance?

      You’ll have to wattle-fuck her.

    8. May the tentacled, other-worldly gods grant you a quick and merciful death.

    9. Upskirt photo.

      1. With as many facelifts as she’s had, I’m betting her pubes are just above her belly button.

    10. No penance needed. You will suffer enough just from hearing her voice and seeing…her…uh…face.

      If you try and cognitively process what she says….well, its been nice known’ you.

    11. “Don’t taze me bro.”

    12. Break out in hysterical laughter at whenever she advocates treating other people as your personal property.

    13. To quote Seinfeld: What you’re about to experience is punishment enough.

  24. FBI: Stopped clock?
    “FBI: Ecoterrorism suspect Daniel San Diego may be in Hawaii”
    […]
    “San Diego, a 36-year-old former resident of Schellville in Sonoma County, is accused of bombing two company offices in the Bay Area more than a decade ago.”
    http://blog.sfgate.com/crime/2…..in-hawaii/

    1. Where in the world is Daniel San Diego?

      1. Well done.

  25. Salon: 3 Inconvenient FACTS that make libertarian heads explode

    1. The inequality problem: Why do some people end up with most of the toys? The fact that in a capitalist system, money seems to flow into the hands of the few is a source of big headaches for many libertarians, though not all?some seem to regard any market outcome as the hand of God herself.

    Libertarians usually start by insisting that how much money you have boils down to the choices you make as an individual. Bad, stupid choices = poverty. Good, smart choices = wealth (those clever Russian oligarchs!).

    Straw man down!

    2. The public goods problem. In the libertarian utopia, you would find nothing but individuals making private transactions in private markets. Those exchanges between individuals would always be fair, because the laws of supply and demand would make sure that you got the things you need at a fair price. You want a pizza, you buy a pizza from a pizzeria, which makes it for you at a reasonable price. Everybody’s happy.

    Only, what if you want to buy your pizza in the evening, and you need streetlights in order to walk to the pizzeria? Now you’ve got a problem, because you can’t go out and buy a streetlight.

    Salon: Because the mental disabled shouldn’t feel like the stupidest people in world.

    1. Either you or them cant count.

      But I find almost all anti-libertarian rants of this type are directed at utilitarians (and poorly). They try to pretend that deontological libertarians dont exist.

      1. Character limits prevented me from posting the third one. It’s just a spiel about how we need government regulations.

        1. Re: Grand Moff Serious Man,

          Character limits prevented me from posting the third one. It’s just a spiel about how we need government regulations.

          But we DO need government regulations! So we can then understand why we don’t need them.

        2. Man up, Big Muff. Do what Sug does and post the other parts as replies to your original so they stay together. Copy/Paste helps with this.

      2. And that deontological (whether religious or not) libertarians are a large majority of libertarians.

        Also, they like to ignore the fact that wealth is created, not found lying on the street, and that those who take the risks to get that wealth should benefit the most.

        …you can’t go out and buy a streetlight.

        Well, yes, I can, but that’s because I’m not a penniless progressive hippy.

        1. And last I checked it is possible to leave the house at night even if there are no streetlights near by.

          1. Exactly. I have my own lights in the driveway and the pizza joint has its own well-lit parking lot.

        2. +1 Futurama.

        3. Flashlights? Plus, why can’t you buy a streetlight?

          1. They actually aren’t all that expensive.

      3. “But I find almost all anti-libertarian rants of this type are directed at utilitarians (and poorly).”

        I’ll say!
        The sub-text in the first ‘example’ is that equality would exist except for us!
        Well, not so much.

        1. And presumes that inequality is in itself a problem.

    2. The fact that in a capitalist system, money seems to flow into the hands of the few is a source of big headaches for many libertarians

      *All* money, or the money which they have earned fair and square? My opinion on the matter is contingent on the answer to that question, not on what some innumerate neckbeard thinks is the proper percentage one should be “allowed” to keep.

      The public goods problem

      A problem which is not resolved by progressive politics, since nothing in dispute wrt progressive vs conservative vs libertarian philosophy concerns public goods as defined by an economist. Housing, health insurance, food, and almost all of the freebies that progressives campaign on are private goods. Indeed, the worst solutions to public goods problems have overwhelmingly been progressive in nature.

      1. When you don’t understand that money and wealth are not the same thing, you are easily manipulated by envy.

    3. Libertarians are proponents of a philosophy that embraces free-market ideology, limited government, and a certain form of individual liberty. They would like to take the government and drown it in the proverbial bathtub.

      They immediately equate limited government to no government, and then everything else proceeds from that false premise.

      What do you call an argument based upon a false premise?

      Yep. It’s fallacies all the way down.

    4. because you can’t go out and buy a streetlight.

      In fact, you can. Lots of private entities provide street lights. Like my HOA. We have a private road, the city and county have no requirement or instrument for paving or lighting the road. In fact, we paid one company to repave our road, and another to put in streetlights with no input from any government agency beyond required permitting.

      1. Or buy a fucking flashlight. You know we had something like 4900 years of civilization before street lights were invented.

      2. mall parking lots have lights.

        from any government agency beyond required permitting.

        Motherfuckers!!!

        1. from any government agency beyond required permitting.

          Motherfuckers!!!

          Well there are so many people around here who believe that technically is the best form of correct. Technically, we did have to interact with a government to pave our road and put up our light, but I don’t believe it to be a necessary condition for doing so in a minarchist or anarchist society.

      3. My HOA bought street lights as well.

    5. Lets pretend a bunch of facts that if true would be hard for Libetarians to explain. Of course none of those “things” are even remotely true as Salon presents them.

      But really, this takes the fucking cake

      Only, what if you want to buy your pizza in the evening, and you need streetlights in order to walk to the pizzeria? Now you’ve got a problem, because you can’t go out and buy a streetlight.

      I guess we never had an economy in the days before street lights. And last I looked the Greens were getting the Euros to shut their street lights off in the name of Mother Earth.

      How the fuck does anyone write something that ridiculous with a straight face?

      The funny part is that there actually are times when things like information problems and uncertainty cause the market to behave in strange ways and make government action appropriate. There are areas that really do give Libertarians problems.

      These people are so fucking stupid they can’t even make the proper arguments for their own side.

      1. The funny part is that there actually are times when things like information problems and uncertainty cause the market to behave in strange ways and make government action appropriate. There are areas that really do give Libertarians problems.

        Hail Eris!

        Embrace chaos and it stops giving you problems. Tulpa might struggle, but thats his problem.

        1. To give an example, tribalism is a real problem for libertarians. If you have a society where the dominant tribe really will fuck a minority tribe profit be damned, the market may not fix the problems of discrimination.

          Privatizing Roads is another one. If I own the bridge, I can take an above market return right up to the point that it is still not worth it to build a competing bridge. That means everyone pays more than they would if the bridge were community owned to line my pockets. That is an inefficiency and one the market won’t solve.

          1. Yes, and yes. Other problems include geographic exclusivity; sometimes it is impossible to create another bridge thanks to the geography. Easements violate strictly interpreted property rights, but lack of easements works poorly in real-world implementation, etc.

          2. 1. You are assuming discrimination is a problem.

            2. The bridge example is true for any product with a high barrier to entry. Once again, not a problem.

            1. 1. You are assuming discrimination is a problem.

              It is if you are a minority and the majority really hates you.

              2. The bridge example is true for any product with a high barrier to entry. Once again, not a problem.

              Yes it is a problem in that it allows someone to make above market returns. If the government builds the bridge, there are no above market returns and everyone makes out better. That is a huge problem for Libertarians who claim privatization of roads is more efficient.

              1. It is if you are a minority and the majority really hates you.

                What have you done with the real John? 😛

              2. Yes it is a problem in that it allows someone to make above market returns.

                How is that a problem?

                And if your problem is rents from owning the property, then adopt georgist views on property and support the SLT.

              3. Yes it is a problem in that it allows someone to make above market returns.

                I don’t even know what this sentence means.

                1. I don’t even know what this sentence means.

                  Pick up a basic economics book and it will explain it to you. There is a set market rate of return in a healthy market. That is the long term rate of return for any product. If you get the jump on someone and you have say a monopoly you can make above that. But eventually other people will figure out alternative products or how to compete with you and your rate of return will return to the norm.

                  When I own the bridge, I gouge the living fuck out anyone who wants to use it right up to the point that my price becomes so high it is worth it to build another bridge. So you are paying me that premium forever. Even if I am stupid and charge too much, you just build a second bridge to compete where none is really needed. In either case, there is money going to waste either in building the second bridge or paying me because I happen to have the bridge. And in both cases society is poorer because of it.

                  1. Pick up a basic economics book and it will explain it to you.

                    My B.S. is in econ and I still don’t know what you’re talking about.

                    What is the “set market rate of return”?

                    What does “gouging” mean to you? How many percentage points above this “market rate of return” equals “gouging”? If you “get the jump” on someone and you make about this “rate of return”, how is that NOT gouging by your own standards?

                    1. NK,

                      In a healthy market I can gouge for a while but not forever. That is why “price gouging” is generally just a bogie man. But in some cases, this being one of them, I really gouge forever and essentially steal from everyone. And that is a problem.

                    2. Except you just admitted that if you did that, someone else would build a bridge to compete. You’re just saying that’s ALSO bad. Pick an argument.

                  2. When I own the bridge, I gouge the living fuck out anyone who wants to use it right up to the point that my price becomes so high it is worth it to build another bridge.

                    Or a bunch of people build ferries to take cars across the river, or enough people relocate to one side of the bridge and never use it.

                    Even if I am stupid and charge too much, you just build a second bridge to compete where none is really needed.

                    Doesn’t the market decide what’s needed and what isn’t?

                2. My neither.

                  I assume he means more than return on a commodity.

                  1. I was right. Im pretty sure his term is wrong.

                    Im surprised he opposes patents and copyright that stongly.

                  2. It is the same principle Rob. It doesn’t matter if it is a service or a good. There is a given amount of return that any investment has to produce to cover the cost of the money. Anything above that will not last in a healthy market. Anything below that and the business will fail.

                    The bridge example is an example of a business getting above that rate of return forever. That shouldn’t happen. And when it does, it is an inefficiency. We shouldn’t have to pay anymore for a good or service than the cost plus the expected rate of return.

                    1. So you do oppose patents and copyright?

                      Just checking.

                    2. Someone else will build another bridge. or start ferrying people across on helicopters…if it weren’t for FAA rules on that sort of thing, that is.

                    3. River ferries were big business in the days before easy bridge building.

                    4. Someone else will build another bridge. or start ferrying people across on helicopters.

                      No they won’t. They will only do that if I charge so much over the rate that the expense is justified. And even if they do, we are building a second bridge where one will do. That is inefficient and we are all poorer for it.

                      The resources that went to build that second bridge that does nothing but make sure I don’t rip everyone off could have been used elsewhere.

                      That is inefficient.

                    5. The resources that went to build that second bridge that does nothing but make sure I don’t rip everyone off could have been used elsewhere.

                      A 2nd bridge will reduce traffic on the first bridge and cost me less to travel to my destination, barring price collusion.

                      How is that not a valuable use of resources?

                    6. It is not invaluable JW. But if it were the most efficient use of it, you would build the bridge anyway not just because I am charging too much money.

                      There is a point where it no longer makes sense to build bridges. By your logic, why not build ten of them?

                    7. If the market demand will support ten bridges then ten are called for. Just like with any other product on earth.

                    8. Am I the one taking crazy pills here or is it you?

                      John, I don’t know when the value of one bridge will exceed the value of 10 bridges or even 20 bridges. Neither do you.

                      Markets seek efficiency, otherwise owners and investors get cheesed off at losing money all the time. Either your bridge is worth it or it isn’t. Full stop.

                      Now, please, FFS, you stop too.

                    9. you’re just asserting it’s inefficient with no proof. Is one cell phone maker more efficient than hundreds? how about one cable provider, rather than dozens? Is one news provider more efficient than many?

                      You can apply this logic to literally anything, and it’s always wrong.

                    10. you’re just asserting it’s inefficient with no proof. Is one cell phone maker more efficient than hundreds? how about one cable provider, rather than dozens? Is one news provider more efficient than many?

                      No I am not. I am asserting building two bridges just so the private operator doesn’t have a monopoly is stupid.

                    11. Is having AT&T, Sprint and T-mobile stupid too? If not, why not?

                    12. Is having AT&T, Sprint and T-mobile stupid too? If not, why not?

                      No, because the costs of barrier to entry and geographical distribution are not as present, and market competition is not contingent on geographical proximity in such contexts.

                      In contrast, market competition along unique geographic lines with the many barriers to entry presented by having to duplicate or even improve upon the adjacent infrastructure system represents an extremely high cost.

                    13. You can apply this logic to literally anything, and it’s always wrong.

                      You fail to understand the logic, then. The problem here is that in the bridge example, the outcome of a natural monopoly is mimicked (i.e., a long-run monopolistic outcome) without the efficiency (i.e., any other circumstance is less efficient economically), largely due to geographic constraints and/or extremely high barriers to entry. A natural monopoly is perfectly efficient; the bridge example proposed by John is not and approximates some of the economic challenges with fully privatizing a road system (there are also non-economic problems with such, but the economic problem is what John described).

                      I would suggest acquainting yourself with the following graph regarding monopoly, as it may be clearer than a text explanation: http://www.economicshelp.org/m…..y-diagram/

                    14. A natural monopoly is perfectly efficient

                      We haven’t been saying any different.

                      Either the X is worth the cost to use it or it isn’t.

                    15. Did you miss the part where I have a B.S. in Econ or are you being deliberately condescending?

                      largely due to geographic constraints and/or extremely high barriers to entry.

                      You’re asserting “geographic constraints” without having taken airplanes, helicopters, ferries, etc. into account, and you’re just asserting geographical issues without pointing any out. I’ll note geographical issues didn’t prevent the Great Northern Railroad from getting built. Also, “high barriers to entry” is a problem with utilities and I am not seeing a “gouging” problem there.

                    16. You’re asserting “geographic constraints” without having taken airplanes, helicopters, ferries, etc. into account

                      Helicopters exist, therefore it is useless to talk about geographic constraints when discussing roads. I’m asserting geographic problems because I assume that you’re not an idiot who seriously needs to be walked through how those can be a problem in that circumstance.

                      “high barriers to entry” is a problem with utilities and I am not seeing a “gouging” problem there.

                      …you’re kidding, right?

                    17. No, actually, I’m not. The market in utilities is suboptimal but it isn’t “gouging” by any stretch of the imagination. Also, utilities are highly regulated.

                    18. I’m asserting geographic problems because I assume that you’re not an idiot who seriously needs to be walked through how those can be a problem in that circumstance.

                      Perhaps you better walk me through like I’m an idiot, because I am guessing that it’s smoke and mirrors all the way down.

                    19. Probably won’t see this since it’s a dead thread, so I’ll repost on the Independents thread:

                      1) The geographic reality of road systems is that they are massive, interconnected, and non-duplicable on a practical scale. The Autobahn is some ~8000 miles long, much of this in mountainous terrain, places where frequent maintenance is needed, and areas where quite frankly there is no physical way to fit a parallel road next to it even if a competitor desired to do so. Even leaving aside sovereign immunity and eminent domain, there is often no way to realistically approximate competition along highways. In short, a road or highway from point A to B is more often than not a one-shot affair, thus eliminating the greatest virtue of markets — competition. Here, classical economic analysis of what a firm with monopoly power does applies.

                      2) It is very difficult to extract rents from a private road in an efficient manner — it is not an exclusive good, and what is to stop me from hopping in my car and driving down the street without paying anything? Tolls are an option, but they are of limited practicality.

                      3) Helicopters, planes, etc are not direct competitors, as they a) do not go to all the places roads go to, b) don’t have the same associated convenience, and c) roads would still be necessary to connect passengers to airports and any of the places in a city that they would like to go.

                    20. Thus, there is neither a) competition, nor b) ability to use price as an efficient allocative device, both of which are necessary for markets to function. There are also rather severe problems with freedom of movement and easements, in that by privatizing roads one has effectively either a) effectively eliminated the concept of easements and thus made travel outside the confines of one’s private property a perilous affair, or b) effectively made it impossible for private road operators to extract rents from users, thus making the construction and operation of roads impossible from a practical perspective.

                      There are several aspects of roadwork, maintenance and operation which can be privatized to varying degrees of success, but the literal privatization of roads and all that entails is a silly response to one of the few things that governments do (and have done since antiquity) with a moderate degree of success.

                    21. One thing no one has pointed out is that government often gouges the shit out of people with toll structures, collecting tolls long after the structure is paid for, which is often a condition they promised in order to lull voters into agreeing to the toll in the first place.

                      Then there is revenue collection via traffic citations.

                      Having government do these things rather than private invididuals is not a superior situation. In fact, It simply creates a monopoly where those sorts of problems are more difficult to remedy.

                    22. What the fuck is an invididual?

              4. That is a huge problem for Libertarians who claim privatization of roads is more efficient.

                I claim that private funding for roads would be more moral than taxation. Whether it’s more efficient or not is secondary to that.

                1. I claim that private funding for roads would be more moral than taxation. Whether it’s more efficient or not is secondary to that.

                  Bolded for extra emphasis.

                  1. Unless you are an anarachist Rob, which I don’t think you are, there is nothing immoral about road taxes versus any other taxes.

                    1. there is nothing immoral about road taxes versus any other taxes.

                      A tax is a user fee by any other name.

                2. Unless you claim that all government is immoral Juice, which would make you an anarchist not a libertarian, what is immoral about taxing for roads? It is not any more or less moral than any other tax.

                  And don’t tell me it is because you don’t benefit from them if you don’t drive on them. You benefit from cheaper transportation costs no matter if you use the road personally or not.

                  1. John, you could use that justification for literally any government program. you “benefit” from “cheaper” education costs. you “benefit” from “cheaper” healthcare costs.

                    you are making the economically ignorant presumption that a market makes things more *expensive* and only government can provide us with cheap goods. Tell that to the 99c store.

                    1. John, you could use that justification for literally any government program. you “benefit” from “cheaper” education costs. you “benefit” from “cheaper” healthcare costs.

                      No you couldn’t. In most cases it is not true. Only in a very few cases is it true. Most of the time the public providing a good makes things less efficient. Roads are one of the very few examples where it can be. Schools are not. Such examples are rare but do exist. Libertarians are foolish to deny that.

                    2. In your case it isn’t true either. And you said “can be”, not that it necessarily “is”.

                  2. It is not any more or less moral than any other tax.

                    The only moral tax is the Single Land Tax.

                    1. The SLT also solves John’s “bridge” problem. If the reason for the high bridge fees is due to some freak of geography, then the rents would be higher on that parcel of land and thus the SLT would be higher.

                      There would still be value from the actual bridge, but not from the situation that makes the bridge unique.

                  3. what is immoral about taxing for roads

                    In my eyes anything that can be called taxation is an initiation of force, which violates the NAP. Private funding for roads would not be immoral because there is no violation. So all taxation is immoral to me. BUT, like the existence of a small coercive state, I see some forms of taxation as a sort of necessary evil. It’s immoral but I can live with it as long as it’s not too onerous. So funding roads with a gas tax or a wheel tax, I can live with that. In that way it’s sort of a user fee anyway.

                3. I’m really, really not seeing how John’s Bridge Company can prevent anyone from competing with him, or more the fact, that someone else wound’t want in on the action. It’s like claiming that he has the only oil drilling rig, so you’ll have to pay his price since nobody else can drill.

                  And I’m really, really, really not seeing how his pricing scheme is even relevant. Either the market will bear the value your bridge brings, or it won’t and seek out other means of similar service.

                  1. I’m really, really not seeing how John’s Bridge Company can prevent anyone from competing with him,

                    I stop from competing with me by charging more than the above market but not so much more that it is worth it to build a second bridge.

                    But even the second bridge is built. There is no need for it other than to just keep me from ripping people off. So you are building a second bridge with resources that could be used elsewhere. That is inefficient and stupid.

                    Do you really think it is a good idea to go around building duplicate bridges so that the owners have competition? Isn’t better just to build one damn bridge and collect taxes to maintain it?

                    1. Do you really think it is a good idea to go around building duplicate bridges so that the owners have competition? Isn’t better just to build one damn bridge and collect taxes to maintain it?

                      Yes. No.

                      Or, competing technologies. It doesnt have to be a bridge.

                    2. If you think the solution is to build duplicate things where none are needed, then I don’t know what to tell you Rob other than you really shouldn’t complain about socialists who want to make us poorer to feed their sacred cows.

                    3. We have more cell phone companies than “needed”! There should only be one!

                    4. We have enough hospitals, no certificate of need for you!

                    5. If you think the solution is to build duplicate things where none are needed

                      I dont think I know when they are or are not needed. I will let the market work that out.

                      You are the one claiming to have solved the Economic Calculation Problem. Im telling you the exact same thing I tell socialists. YOU ARENT SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT.

                    6. This has nothing to do with the economic calculation problem, rob. You should really check out some of the economic work on public goods and economic monopoly.

                    7. This has nothing to do with the economic calculation problem, rob.

                      This is exactly the economic calulation problem. “How many bridges do we need?” is exactly the kind of question that cant be answered without pricing to tell us.

                      “How may shoes should we produce?” is the exact same problem.

                    8. Rob, no it doesn’t because in this case by working through first principles, neither the market nor top down controls are providing a rational price in the sense described by Mises and Hayek. (Hayek himself said as much in Law, Legislation, and Liberty, noting roads as one area where the Economic Calculation Problem had little to say precisely because the allocative benefits of prices failed to account for many salient factors).

                      When two students are both providing wrong answers to a question of mathematics, one can hardly use one of the student’s demonstrated prior ability with mathematics to argue that his answer in this case is correct — they’re both wrong, and that’s that.

                    9. where none are needed

                      What does this even mean? You keep saying that.

                      Value is not objective.

                    10. “Do you really think it is a good idea to go around building duplicate bridges so that the owners have competition?”

                      So you are saying that creating shovel ready jobs is a bad thing?

                    11. John, you’ve created this fantastical world, where only one bridge has any value. How will you know what the market price is if your bridge is 100% of the market?

                      if traffic is light and your bridge saves me 30 minutes of travel time, I’ll pay your rate. If traffic isn’t light and the congestion actually costs me time, I won’t pay it.

                      As I said above, either the market thinks your bridge is worth the cost to travel on it or it won’t. Unless you’re some uber-powerful war lord who can destroy his enemies, or a modern progressive, you can’t stop anyone from constructing alternative routes that reduce the value of your bridge.

                  2. Either the market will bear the value your bridge brings, or it won’t and seek out other means of similar service.

                    Exactly. Either its worth it to cross the bridge or it isnt. If the bridge isnt there at all, its not worth it to anyone, so the bridge always increases the net economic value.

                    Its a reverse broken window situation.

                    1. Exactly. Either its worth it to cross the bridge or it isnt. If the bridge isnt there at all, its not worth it to anyone, so the bridge always increases the net economic value.

                      That is only half the equation. It may be worth it to you to pay me $1000 to get across that bridge. But that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be better if you paid me a dollar and we used that money somewhere besides making me rich.

                      That is a solution. It is just not an efficient one or a very smart one.

                    2. and you had the temerity to call me ignorant on economics. You literally have no idea what you’re talking about and you don’t even know it.

                    3. But that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be better if you paid me a dollar and we used that money somewhere besides making me rich.

                      Its better for me to pay $1. Its better for you to collect $1000 (maybe, depending on how many people are willing to pay $1 vs $1000, but that is your business to determine).

          3. As long as the majority “fucking over” the minority doesn’t involve force, then I think that’s definitionally a #firstworldproblem, which is where we want to be.

            1. And as libertarians arent anarchists, we would use state power to stop the majority from using force against the minority. So, problem “solved”.

            2. You clearly have no idea how tribal societies work. And it is not a first world problem. It is a third world problem and it goes a long ways to explaining why capitalism doesn’t work in some places.

              You can’t have a successful economy in a truly tribalist society. The reason for that is that you can’t run a business when your paramount value is taking care of your tribe and fucking the other tribe. When you have that you can’t hire the most qualified people or fire people when they fuck up because doing so puts you at odds with your tribe.

              You need to have an individual based society to have a good economy.

              1. You can’t have a successful economy in a truly tribalist society. The reason for that is that you can’t run a business when your paramount value is taking care of your tribe and fucking the other tribe.

                Liberalism is tribalism, eh?

                1. +1 ethnic/sexual identity

          4. If you have a society where the dominant tribe really will fuck a minority tribe profit be damned, the market may not fix the problems of discrimination.

            Thing is, it only takes one to screw it all up. Just one.

            That’s why Jim Crow required legislation. If just one business chose not to discriminate, then the ones who did would be the losers.

            Effective discrimination requires force.

            1. Force does not require legislation; witness the many pogroms in Europe.

            2. Thing is, it only takes one to screw it all up. Just one.

              That is where social pressure comes in. In a tribal society, even if I want to help the other tribe, I can’t because doing so will mean my tribe kicking me out.

              To give an example, as a business owner, I may want to hire that member of the other tribe because he is the best. But I can’t do it if doing so means all of the members of my tribe refuse to frequent my business.

              Imagine if every or most white fans refused to buy tickets to a major league baseball came after the game integrated. If that had happened, the game would have never integrated. And in tribal societies that is what happens

              1. Markets have an incredible way of overcoming tribal pressure.

                1. That is true in the long run, but rarely so over a short period. In a relatively homogeneous region with further philosophical and religious ties imploring cooperation and reciprocity, it took an unbelievably long time to overcome prejudices against women, those of other races, those of other ethnicities, and (very recently) those of different sexual orientation, even with markets. In some societies, it doesn’t happen because ultimately markets are a means to expressing preferences and if preferences value tribal loyalty above individual well-being or happiness, markets are going to reflect those preferences rather than change them. Over the long run, supply-side attempts to lower costs do help break those tribal bonds, but that is over a very long time horizon.

                  1. In the long run, Keynes is still dead.

                2. Sure sarcasmic. But they don’t always. This is why so many countries have such shitty economies even though their populations are full of hard working industrious people. You can see this in Africa. African expats do great. But most of Africa still sucks. Why? Because most of Africa is still tribal.

                  1. But most of Africa still sucks. Why? Because most of Africa is still tribal.

                    And those tribal values are enforced by force. Absent enforcers who employ violence, markets can change values.

                    1. And those tribal values are enforced by force.

                      Sure they are. But the force is coming from the tribes not the government. The people themselves are tribal. They were tribal before there ever was a government. That is the problem.

                    2. Government is nothing more than the people with the last word in violence. Whether it’s called government or tribe or gang or whatever, effectively it’s government.

                    3. Sure sarcasmic. But that doesn’t disprove my point which is that free market economies don’t work very well in tribal societies.

                    4. My point is that effective discrimination requires force. You have not disproved my point.

        2. Embrace chaos and it stops giving you problems.

          Not really, uncertainty is bad. The better argument is that emergent order is far superior in most matters of economy than top-down organization (which really is chaotic, if you have ever read accounts of the USSR’s bureaucratic system).

          1. Not really, uncertainty is bad.

            [citation needed]

            Inefficient sure, but bad?

            1. Yes, it is bad — especially in extreme cases. Almost every war is a matter of uncertainty and lack of information. Almost every broken economy is a matter of being unable to reconcile supply and demand through the price system — other mechanisms for reconciliation creating uncertainty as to how these forces will be brought into an equilibrium. Uncertainty as a condition is less preferable to certainty in every case, and as such can be labelled “bad”.

              1. Almost every war is a matter of uncertainty and lack of information.

                But its not the uncertainty that is bad, its the war.

                Uncertainty as a condition is less preferable to certainty in every case

                Clearly you dont play games with an element of luck. Sure, “Ora et Labora” is fun, but preferable?

            2. Rob,

              Without cost certainty, I can’t plan. If I can’t plan, I can’t make rational decisions.

              1. No one has cost certainty. I have no idea what my electric bill will be next month, March is notoriously fickle.

                I can still make plans and rational decisions.

                1. No one has cost certainty.

                  I can tell you exactly what my rent is, my car payment. Sure, I don’t have total certainty about some things, but I have some certainty. I don’t know exactly what my electric bill will be. But I know it is going to be within a few hundred dollars. If I didn’t and had no idea if it was going to be nothing or bankrupt me, I couldn’t plan or do much of anything.

                  You have to have knowledge for a market to work. The less knowledge you have, the less efficient the market is.

                  1. If I didn’t and had no idea if it was going to be nothing or bankrupt me, I couldn’t plan or do much of anything.

                    So, basically, like medical costs.

                    Hmmm…if only there were some sort of product you could buy that would eliminate the uncertainty that exists so that you could plan for it.

                    But the uncertainty existed before you made your plan.

                    The less knowledge you have, the less efficient the market is.

                    True, and I said uncertainty was inefficient. Just not “bad”. Bad to me means “minor evil”. And there is nothing good of bad about uncertainty, it just is.

                    And while a market is more efficient with knowledge, lack of knowledge leads to great arbitrage possibilities.

                    1. So, basically, like medical costs.

                      That is a great example. And that is why I buy insurance for those costs and why the market for medicine will never be like the market for cars or other goods that have a known cost.

                      True, and I said uncertainty was inefficient. Just not “bad”.

                      From the perspective of the market inefficiency is “bad”. Markets are supposed to solve for that. In some cases they don’t. That is the whole point.

                    2. So, basically, like medical costs

                      Indeed, and the reason that one pays a premium for medical insurance is precisely to avoid being caught within those jaws.

                      From the perspective of the market inefficiency is “bad”

                      Also from the perspective of politics. You want a stable system of laws, due process, etc. because of the certainty which it affords. The point of having a justice system and due process in the first place rather than a system based on blood feud is because of the consistency and certainty such a system provides.

                      I am not suggesting that uncertainty is cosmically ‘bad’, but in the context of decision-making which involves costs it certainly is.

                    3. Indeed, and the reason that one pays a premium for medical insurance is precisely to avoid being caught within those jaws.

                      But the uncertainty still exists, its just at the insurance company level now. You paid them to take the uncertainty away from you. But it still exists. Fortunately for them, when pooled with 2MM other people, its not a big deal.

                    4. Sure, but you paid them because it is worth something to you to not have to live with that uncertainty. Most of human existence has been about improving ourselves and our surroundings to be more comfortable and secure, and a large part of those efforts (including in financial and insurance markets) has been about reducing uncertainty in our day-to-day.

                    5. Markets are supposed to solve for that. In some cases they don’t. That is the whole point.

                      You have been reading too much prog-talk.

                      Markets arent supposed to do anything, they just are.

                      Next you are going to be claiming there are market failures or snipes.

                    6. Markets arent supposed to do anything, they just are.

                      Markets are generally the most efficient way of doing things. That is why it is better let them function as unmolested as possible.

                      It is efficiency that is the end. Allowing the market to work is just the means. Libertarians often forget that and think the “market” is some kind of end in itself. It is not.

                    7. It is efficiency that is the end.

                      Probably…but that seems very utilitarian.

                      Libertarians often forget that and think the “market” is some kind of end in itself. It is not.

                      Disagree. Morally, the market is the only acceptable solution for trade. Its not an end but a means, so that I agree on. But this goes back to the utilitarian vs deontological libertarian difference. I dont care about the end, but that the means is moral, and a free market is the moral means.

                      What is its end? Who the fuck cares? Oh, its generally efficiency? Well, good, thats a nice result. Win-win.

                    8. Probably…but that seems very utilitarian.

                      No. That goes to my other point which is that sometimes efficiency isn’t the paramount value and thus pure unmolested markets are not the best solution.

                      And markets are great. But they don’t always give you the most efficient or the best result. They do almost all of the time. But not always.

                    9. Libertarians often forget that and think the “market” is some kind of end in itself. It is not.

                      Freedom is the end. When there is freedom there are free markets. Yes, that’s the end.

                2. I have no idea what my electric bill will be next month, March is notoriously fickle.

                  As someone who recently got a temp job in the gas utility business, I can corroborate this. Also, enjoy your freezing rain tomorrow.

                  1. Tomorrow? It was 65 when I left for jury duty and sleeting on me on my way home at noon.

          2. The market is almost always will give you the most efficient solution to a problem. But there are a few times when it won’t and there are sometimes where efficiency isn’t the paramount value.

            1. True. Example from my point of view: immigration.

              100% true that completely open borders is, all else being equal, more economically efficient than any other situation.

              Also true that in a democracy where immigrants and their children are rapidly made into citizens, there are cases where the political equilibria and norms which previously existed are negatively changed as a result of these individuals. Further, some immigrants are bad apples or may be carriers of a disease which would be bad for the general populace.

              Personally, I am not convinced that such is the case with the vast majority of Mexican immigrants, but neither am I persuaded that there could never be a case where the latter (non-economic) considerations outweigh economic efficiency in importance.

              1. There are numerous non-economic considerations for open borders that outweigh the economic efficiency.

                1) Lowering low-end wages in a welfare state means more welfare spending.

                2) The Putnam Effect (diversity decreasing social trust, etc.)

                3. The perverse fact that people fleeing bad economic conditions often arrive in a new area and then vote for politicians who promote the same policies that created the economic conditions they fled. This applies to New Yorkers who move to Florida, Californians who move to Nevadan and Colorado etc., and Mexicans who move to the US.

            2. Efficiency is never the paramount value when you must sacrifice liberty to achieve it.

              1. Okay, then get rid of the rule of law Juice. That is a restriction on freedom. Again you are just making the anarchist argument not the libertarian one.

      2. Lets pretend a bunch of facts that if true would be hard for Libetarians to explain.

        When you’re 12 and land your first writing gig at a major site, everything is new and wondrous to you.

      3. The funny part is that there actually are times when things like information problems and uncertainty cause the market to behave in strange ways and make government action appropriate. There are areas that really do give Libertarians problems.

        These people are so fucking stupid they can’t even make the proper arguments for their own side.

        Part of the reason they can’t do so is that one would have to understand economics and the public goods problem on a level that is beyond superficial examination. FFS, I still see progs refer to health insurance and food as “public goods”, a level of ignorance along the lines of confusing the concepts of velocity and gravity in physics. Of course, understanding economics at that level would necessitate them rejecting large parts of the prog agenda, or at least accepting that much of what they would like done comes at significant cost and has large trade-offs.

        There certainly are arguments against the rather extreme take that libertarians have on public goods, but nothing that is ideology-killing or which progs do not do an even worse job at. The Sewer Socialists at least knew how to run public utilities semi-competently — when is the last time you heard someone say, “Damn, I don’t agree with his politics but at least our progressive mayor is clean as a whistle and knows how to run our city”?

        1. Exactly that IMT. They really are devolving before our eyes. These people would make even the worst Wilsonian Progressive ashamed to have the name associated with them.

          1. Wouldn’t his initials actually be TIT?

            1. Could be. But IM for immaculate and T for Trouser seems acceptable.

      4. How the fuck does anyone write something that ridiculous with a straight face?

        It’s not so much that, as it is the voting shitwits who are sitting there, reading it, and nodding their heads in agreement.

      5. These people are so fucking stupid they can’t even make the proper arguments for their own side.

        I know. One of the exploded pieces of my head is saying;

        Now you’ve got a problem, because you can’t go out and buy a streetlight. So, you create a put someone in charge of putting up streetlamps. Now you’ve got at least two problems.

      6. You really should have some sort of flashlight when walking at night anyway.

        1. You really should have some sort of flashlight when walking at night anyway.

          Did you just advocate personal responsibility!?!?

      7. This….I don’t even….

        tljan
        29 minutes ago

        This thread is hilarious! It prove again that libertarians only live (and die) in internet comment threads. Real world? Eh, not much.

        LikeReply


        Caliman
        26 minutes ago

        @tljan Sure … so why does Salon keep writing articles about how it’s a bunch of crap?


        1LikeReply


        tljan
        15 minutes ago

        @Caliman @tljanHahaha. So libertarianism is a bunch of crap now? Thanks for letting us know!

        I mean, I’m impressed that a 4 year old can type, but Christ, that’s stupid.

    6. Re: Grand Moff Serious Man,

      Finally! The bullet points I was waiting for!

      1. The inequality problem: Why do some people end up with most of the toys?

      While income inequality is a fact, the opinion of the writer regarding inequality is NOT a fact nor something that should make libertarians’ heads explode.

      Only, what if you want to buy your pizza in the evening, and you need streetlights in order to walk to the pizzeria?

      I don’t know where this guy lives, but leaving aside the fact that you can have your pizza delivered by a private contractor, almost all of the places where people live in Houston don’t have streetlights to speak about.

      1. almost all of the places where people live in Houston don’t have streetlights to speak about.

        None in my neighborhood. I have walked at night to local restaurants. Including a pizza place.

        1. How did you survive!?!?!?

          I have no idea why the streetlight thing is pissing me off so much.

          1. Because it’s the worst sort of bullshit. Look for more ridiculous accusations in the coming months.

            “Libertarians don’t like flush toilets because that would require a state-run sewage system and environmental regulations.”

            1. Anti-libertarians used to use lighthouses as an argument, until someone did some research and discovered all the private lighthouses that existed.

              1. So now they use streetlights: you know, the things that they are turning off in libertarian Detroit.

                1. Excellent points, both, MangoLA.

                  But you know, of course, that Detroit’s decay is the fault of libertarians, because…something.

      2. I was in lower Manhattan last year wandering around after dinner. There are only street lights on the large main roads. It’s like pitch fucking black. I’m totally amazed I wasn’t raped and murdered by some gang because some other gang didn’t shake me down for the streetlight tax.

      3. The best argument and the one I have yet to hear a satisfactory response to is that if tomorrow everyone in America’s wealth doubled, inequality would also double.

        Would that problem or would everyone be twice as well off as before?

        1. No, everyone wouldn’t be twice as well off as before. People with negative wealth would be worse off, even if their negative wealth didn’t double. They’d be left behind by the runaway inflation.

    7. because you can’t go out and buy a streetlight.

      O_O

      WOW

    8. Only, what if you want to buy your pizza in the evening, and you need streetlights in order to walk to the pizzeria? Now you’ve got a problem, because you can’t go out and buy a streetlight

      I mean how absurd is this idea? You could buy a flash light. A maglight if you feel the need to carry a club. You could actually buy a street light and maybe some of your neighbors would too or maybe they won’t. Maybe there’d be a bunch of individual solutions to this problem that I could never think of because I’m not fucking omnipotent.

    9. But if there were no street lights, we would have a far less serious light pollution problem, as well as all the greenhouse gasses that come from making all that electricity to power them.

      WHY DOES SALON HATE THE EARTH?

    10. Only, what if you want to buy your pizza in the evening, and you need streetlights in order to walk to the pizzeria? Now you’ve got a problem, because you can’t go out and buy a streetlight.

      I can’t disagree, it made my head explode.

    11. Wait, since when do the folks at Salon write stories about libertarian ideals?

    12. I like how Salon mentions that the US is one of the most unequal countries economically in the world.

      Yet forgets to mention who is president, how much regulation that president and the president before him implemented, and forgot all about what fanny and Freddy did to destroy trillions in middle class wealth and how the fix to that problem actually exacerbated it.

      And then later they have the nerve to claim crony capitalism.

      Fucking dimwhits don’t get that you can’t have crony capitalism without government being the crony

      1. Progressives are people who support perpetual welfare, unwed motherhood, the minimum wage, every tax and regulation of business, schools controlled by teacher’s unions, and massive immigration of poor Third Worlders, and then complain about “inequality.”

    13. One inconvenient fact that will make statists’ heads explode:

      I do not consent.

      1. Meh, I’m pretty sure that when they shoot you, it’s still you’re head that will do the exploding.

        “I shoot back”, on the other hand…

    14. I have never seen an argument against libertarianism….or against liberty really, that was not a giant fucking straw man.

      1. While socialists havent solved the Economic Calculation Problem yet.

        That isnt a straw man, and it gets entirely brushed aside.

        1. Indeed. They’ve got beams in their own eye, but are critical of the motes in the eyes of libertarians.

    15. Only, what if you want to buy your pizza in the evening, but the pizzeria is closed? Now you’ve got a problem, because you can’t shove more pizza down your fat piehole.

    16. Is this the same Tony as ours?

      Tony
      23 minutes ago

      The number one thing that baffles me about libertarians is how they spend all their time doing what normal people only spend fleeting daydreams doing: imagining fantasy worlds.

      I mean, sure, I can dream up the utopia I’d like to live in, but I don’t consider that serious thinking, I consider it playing.

      Yep. I’m guessing it is.

      1. That’s some serious projection.

  26. It’s not like you can just START a business, right?

    Deal of the century: buyout the US coal industry

    Would you make a one time $50 (?31) investment to save $100-500 each year? Sound good? Add nine zeros to each of those numbers. In other words, invest $50bn once over the next decade, and generate $100-$500bn in benefits every year.

    That’s the surprisingly low price to buy up and shut down all the private and public coal companies in the US, breaking the centuries-old grip of an obsolete, destructive technology that threatens our present and our future. It’s a compelling high-return opportunity available now in the US if some farsighted investors merge purpose and private equity in a new way.

    1. Ummm…that covers the costs, but not the benefits.

      1. They won’t have to hide the decline anymore, since they can just claim the non-existent warming is due to their idiotic policies. WIN!

      2. Not to mention that pesky supply-demand thing, where if you started buying coal up the price would go up.

        Um, how exactly is coal threatening the present, unless you mean mountain tops in W VA, which I somehow doubt the Guardian is doing? Mercury in the tuna?

    2. 1. Invest $50 billion by buying up all US coal mines.

      2. Shut down the mines

      3. Profit?

      What am I missing? Where does the $100-500 billion come from?

      To assign a dollar value, we’d need to put a price on carbon.

      Ok, I’ll give you zero dollars.

      1. It helps if you assume the carbon is in the form of diamonds. Then you get to assume a better return.

        1. Add to that the carbon in the certificate from DeBeers, without which you basically have some cheap, pretty rocks.

    3. breaking the centuries-old grip of an obsolete, destructive technology that threatens our present and our future.

      Obsolete? Do they propose replacing coal with nuclear? Or were they just going to shut coal plants down and worry about how to replace that electricity later?

      1. You dumb ass. That’s when we buy out the natural gas industry, and then the nuclear industry, then the hydro industry, until we’re down to generating electricity on pedal bikes.

        1. I saw that movie. Want me to spoil it for you?

      2. They don’t seem to get that you do not need laws to shut down truly obsolete technologies, they just fade away on their own.

    4. With the advent of hydraulic fracturing, the price per BTU for coal energy is almost twice the price per BTU for natural gas energy. Not suprisingly, US coal consumption has been declining steadily since 2008.

      Why buyout an industry that’s going bankrupt for free?

      1. Because they’re economically illiterate?

        1. There’s also the “baptists and bootleggers” angle to this. The coal industry is one of the major funders of anti-fracking “green” groups.

      2. “Why buyout an industry that’s going bankrupt for free?”

        I think you are missing something. THEY will be the ones collecting the money and orchestrating the purchase, paying themselves a hefty, hefty fee for services. That is why.

        Just shut up, stop trying to figure it out, and send them some money.

  27. The overtime thing will kill jobs.

    Seriously.

    A number of economists have brought up that uncompensated overtime is one of the confounding factors that obscures the effect of the minimum wage. The minimum wage rises, employers start expecting employees to put in more uncompensated overtime. Kill the unconspensated overtime and the minimum wage becomes “real” (which I expect is the point from Obama’s POV). But then because the wage hike is now “real”, then employers will really be forced to pay the wage, and will not be able to adjust – hence layoffs.

    1. The minimum wage rises, employers start expecting employees to put in more uncompensated overtime. Kill the unconspensated overtime and the minimum wage becomes “real” (which I expect is the point from Obama’s POV). But then because the wage hike is now “real”, then employers will really be forced to pay the wage, and will not be able to adjust – hence layoffs.

      And eventually they’ll raise prices for their product. The new minimum wage will have the same buying power as the old. Hiring will go up and some other pol will use the minimum wage issue to buy votes. Wash, rinse, repeat.

      1. The price hikes and their effectiveness will depend a lot on the elasticity of demand on a particular product/service.

        What’s more likely to happen is for capital investment to replace labor when and where that becomes the more efficient alternative. Expect a lot more self-service and automated ordering at fast food restaurants.

    2. I find it hard to believe there are many minimum wage workers who qualify as exempt employees to begin with.

  28. George Zimmerman’ parents are suing Roseanne Barr for tweeting their home address, prompting them to go into hiding.

    You would think someone with the kind of money Barr has would feel guilty and have just given them a good settlement. For her to make them sue her tells you all you need to know about the content of her character.

    1. I hope they get her macadamia nut farm.

      1. Mmmm, macadamias. The Delta Burke of nuts. Plump and buttery.

  29. What is to be my penance?

    I don’t know if it qualifies as “penance” but you’ll have to take several weeks of remedial English classes after listening to her random phrase generator gibberish.

    I hope the sex is worth it (I can only assume you’re doing this to impress a girl).

  30. The inequality problem: Why do some people end up with most of the toys?

    Apparently, these people have never played Monopoly.

    1. Or taken a look at, oh, any other large society in the history of the world.

  31. Last time I checked, hotels and restaurants are not required to pay overtime. Or did they change that? Maybe they did. Even so, I spent a good decade working in hospitality, and only one employer refused to pay his cooks overtime. But it fit his business model. The food was mostly frozen shit that required no skill to cook, so he could easily hire kids to do the work. I roughed it until a position opened on the floor, then made bank on tips.

    1. I’m pretty sure they are required to but, don’t quote me on that. Shift pay have become fairly common. What we call “French overtime” is still pretty common: making more work than is possible to complete in the scheduled shift, so you come in early, only to have those hours erased. Also paying your middle management (sous and kitchen managers) way less than they were making per hour and because they are management, they are exempt so you can work them into the ground.

      For someone who’s career this there aren’t a lot of options other than to just except it since it’s what everyone does. Since profit margins are razor thin and there isn’t the kind of volume of large retail there isn’t much to do about it either.

      1. This only applies to the BoH I know fuck all about how servers and bartenders get paid. Though I don’t think they get OT in PA.

    2. They absolutely are required to pay overtime to their non-exempt employees, it’s just that the hospitality industry is probably the most flagrant violator of labor laws.

      In high-end restaurants French overtime (working extra hours off the clock before or after this shift) is quite common. This doesn’t make the practice legal.

  32. BAN IPADS! FOR THE KIDS!

    As a pediatric occupational therapist, I’m calling on parents, teachers and governments to ban the use of all handheld devices for children under the age of 12 years.

    1. And lead pencils. Because lead!

    2. Yeah, fuck those autistic kids who use them to learn.

    3. As a nobody, I call on banning you.

      1. What if we just banned children at this point?

      2. Jesus, I went back and looked in the comments. The author makes an appearance:

        There is no research that shows that educational technology does anything more than entertain, yet whole school districts and education ministries have implemented technology with children as young as 5 years of age. In the absence of a teacher, can a child learn?

        So there we go. Nobody can learn anything if there isn’t a teacher around.

  33. I am a virgin and I don’t need excuses

    I’m not religious, I don’t have a fear of sex, and I have an awesome boyfriend of 2 years who would be at my doorstep in seconds with a box of condoms if I made that call. On top of all that, I occasionally write for a sex-positive site called Slutist. But despite these factors, I am a 22-year-old virgin.

    [snip]

    Most people don’t understand it ? not even my own mother, who is beginning to wonder if something is psychologically wrong with me.

    What my mother and friends don’t know is that just like them, I also don’t understand why I’m not having sex.

    “Yes, I’m physically attracted to him,” I explained to one of my best friends over the phone when I needed some advice on the subject. “Yes, we make out ? but not much else. Yes, I’m sure he’s the one I want to be with. Yes, someday I’ll have sex with him, but I just don’t know when.”

    My status as a feminist heightens my shame of being a virgin. In the feminist realm, virginity is often associated with “the patriarchy.” t is evil half of a sexist binary that shames women. Virgins get little love and attention in feminist circles where so many women have fought for the right to be unabashedly sexual. Feminists have websites dedicated to kinks and sexual fantasies, we defend to all ends a woman’s right to have control over her body, and some of us are proud to call ourselves sluts.

    1. I’m pretty sure he’d be at the door of any chick who asked him with his box of condoms at this point

    2. From the snippet you posted, her situation seems a little abnormal, but there’s nothing wrong with it.

      1. I don’t have a problem with her, I just find the subject matter interesting especially since she has a boyfriend that she’s somewhat intimate with.

        She’s probably asexual as she alludes to later in the article.

        1. I can understand one partner waiting for the other to be ready for sex if there’s a rational reason why it’s not happening (religion, bad prior experience, familiarity, whatever). But what person (guy or girl) wants to hold off on an intimate relationship after two years when no concrete reason is offered?

          The boyfriend should have bolted a long time ago, and I would say the same if the genders were reversed.

          1. The boyfriend should have bolted a long time ago, and I would say the same if the genders were reversed.

            Younger men often don’t have any options. This might be his best chance for sex.

    3. In the feminist realm, virginity is often associated with “the patriarchy.”

      Lulz.

    4. She’s one kind of whore at least.

    5. Huh? The feminists I know make Lady Whiteadder look like a libertine.

    6. Frigid.

      BF…run. If she ain’t fucking you now, think how it’ll be when you are 50.

    7. What the hell is wrong with her boyfriend? It’s one thing if she’s religious and has some conviction to uphold or something, but if she’s not fucking because she just isn’t feeling it? Then get out of there.

      1. Maybe he’s gay.

          1. I do not! Besides, I’m just being nice. If he’s not gay, he’s contributing to the downfall of civilization.

          2. They aren’t?

      2. Probably nothing is wrong with him. He is showing up at a door somewhere with a box of condoms, just not hers. She is fooling herself if she thinks he isn’t.

    8. Most people don’t understand it ? not even my own mother, who is beginning to wonder if something is psychologically wrong with me.

      “WHY AREN’T YOU OPENING YOUR COOTER FOR EVERY RANDOM BAD BOY THAT WALKS YOUR WAY LIKE I DID, SWEETIE? I’VE OBVIOUSLY FAILED AS A PARENT BECAUSE YOU HAVEN’T GOTTEN AT LEAST ONE STD BY NOW!”

  34. http://priceonomics.com/evicted-in-san-francisco/

    Two months ago, 75-year old Inge Dhillion was evicted from her San Francisco residence; her possessions were forcibly moved into a storage unit, and she was left without a home. She now sleeps in a brown 1997 Volvo station wagon with her cat, Queenie, parked in front of her old home in the Mission District. She steals ice from motel machines to chill her daily insulin shots, and relies on the goodwill of social workers to help her through daily life.

    Within a few weeks of the eviction, the landlord put the property on the market for $1.4 million; it’s a good time to sell, considering he bought the place for $627,000 in 2002.

    Sounds like a classic case of an evil capitalist opressing a poor old woman, of course.

    Albeit one who:

    * “…she said she will burn the house down if we didn’t fix the leaking roof.”

    * lived in an illegal unit that would have taken $150K to make legal

    * stopped paying rent after it increased $80 and wouldn’t pay utilities, costing landlord $10K

    * after winning the first appeal and getting a 3-month stay on renovation, failed to attend the second

    * was payed a $14K settlement, after which she signed a contract agreeing to vacate within 60 days after which she…

    * …still didn’t vacate, then skipped another appeal

    1. And she doesn’t have any resources, so she has nowhere to go, of course:

      Luckily, when Inge was a Teamster taxi driver all those years ago, she opted to take a pay cut to qualify her free health coverage through Kaiser; today, she still enjoys that benefit. In addition, she receives about $1,300 per month in disability and social security pay, and has “about $3,000 in quarter rolls” tucked away in a safe at her friend’s apartment.

      …or not. Maybe, just maybe, she doesn’t have a right to live in SF, and certainly doesn’t need to since she has no job or family there.

      She would have no trouble finding somewhere to live out in the country on that kind of budget, but, you know, something something capitalism.

      1. Wow. This woman easily encapsulates why I hate San Fransisco. It’s so pretty, I love the foggy weather. But the people! Ugh.

    2. I’m sure if she didn’t pay a property tax bill the city would have been much more lenient and let her stay.

  35. I was looking to get nine minutes of work in before links. You’ve ruined my productivity!

    1. 9 minutes?? You braggart!

  36. Of course Socialism doesn’t have an inequality problem or anything. Socialist societies are classless. They never have problems with the politically connected getting ahead at everyone else’ expense or anything.

    It astounds me how stupid these people actually are. I really think I need to take up a career as a lefty propagandist. These clowns don’t even try. I would be hailed as a genius among these people. Becoming a leftist blogger journalist would be like going to one of those isolated tribes in New Guinna with a supply of kitchen knives and Zippo lighters. Just playing devil’s advocate and making a few cogent arguments for their side would get you treated like a God.

    1. Re: John,

      Becoming a leftist blogger journalist would be like going to one of those isolated tribes in New Guinna with a supply of kitchen knives and Zippo lighters.

      And an empty Coca-Cola bottle.

      1. Yes. They would be killing each other within weeks over ownership of your arguments.

      2. They would just fight over it, then crack a kid in the head with it.

    2. I really think I need to take up a career as a lefty propagandist.

      I used to have a sock puppet to troll politically correct sites. I could say the most blitheringly stupid, but ever so goodthinkful, things and have people agree with me. It would have been funny if it hadn’t been so depressing.

      1. I keep reading comments on sites where conservatives will refer to liberalism as a mental disorder. I used to roll my eyes, but as I keep reading articles by leftist loons and read the comments of their supporters, I have started to realize, more and more, that those conservatives are right.

        1. Corning, I must vehemently disagree on the grounds that you are being both too charitable and too cruel with that formulation.

          Too cruel because of the historical usage by statist regmies, most prominently in the USSR, of the tactic of pathologizing dissenting political opinions and classifying them as mental illness.

          Too charitable because ascribing their opinions to illness absolves them of moral responsibility for their vile ideas.

    3. I thought about making a sockpuppet leftist blog that advocated for eugenics because even though we are all equal the conservatives will never see it that way so minorities should voluntarily not have any children (they could adopt) so society can remove bigotry by eliminating everything to be bigoted against

      Might be too heavy handed…idk

  37. It’s a compelling high-return opportunity available now in the US if some farsighted investors merge purpose and private equity in a new way.

    Yes, and you could buy a Ferrari 250 GTO and enter it in a demolition derby, but I’m not sure how you’d come out “ahead” in the long run.

    1. But thing about what that would do to value of other collector cars? Think about how much that would stimulate the economy?

      1. Think of the restorers, the custom parts that will need to be made…

    2. Think of it like the period of 1983-2003 in the US. We made our oil and natgas so expensive that we banked it while other people with the same easy to extract oil sold theirs for cheap. This, too, would be more of an unintended consequence of economic ignorance, but their less idealistic heirs might actually enjoy a huge payday.

  38. Satire or reality? Chicago cab drivers threaten to out aldermen if they don’t move to ban Uber, etc.

    In an editorial in The Chicago Dispatcher, publisher George Lutfallah said the trade publication “has learned that five of the city’s 50 aldermen are closeted homosexuals. In the next issue of this newspaper, set to be published early next month, we will disclose their names unless our demands are met.”

    “The city is moving forward and will steamroll our industry if we don’t act in earnest. They did it to my grandfather more than a hundred years ago when they destroyed his horse-drawn-carriage business by allowing horseless machines to carry people around the city,” he wrote.
    It’s unclear if the editorial was meant as satire, especially since Lutfallah also demanded the City Council ban the Internet and require people to buy newspapers…
    …Lutfallah suggested a number of regulations, some of them equally peculiar. He suggested ride-share drivers be required to get annual chest X-rays, “like the city-endorsed doctor had me do to renew my chauffeur’s license last month.”…
    He also said the city should require GPS tracking of vehicles used by ride-sharing companies, “so that our informant can keep telling us when Aldermen are taken from their homes and dropped off in Boys Town.”

    1. a) Blackmail, how nice.
      b) No city needs 50 aldermen.

      1. a) It’s not blackmail when we do it!
        b) Fuck you, you obstructionist tea bagger! You just want us to be like Somalia!

        /progtard

    2. five of the city’s 50 aldermen are closeted homosexuals

      Only 5? I expected more from your city.

      They did it to my grandfather more than a hundred years ago when they destroyed his horse-drawn-carriage business by allowing horseless machines to carry people around the city,” he wrote.

      Ok, I hovered over the link to see if it was some alternate universe conservative version of The Onion.

    3. Or they could use that leverage to drop the regulations if they’re so damn inconvenient…

      I’d bet anything this guy whines about oppressive government on any other subject.

    4. It’s unclear if the editorial was meant as satire, especially since Lutfallah also demanded the City Council ban the Internet and require people to buy newspapers…

      It’s either satire or the guy’s completely bonkers.

      1. Of course it’s satire. He just trotted out the buggy whip argument.

        1. No. read the link. It’s not clear.

          1. I guess he could be a union guy…

    5. Wow Nicole, I’m assuming you didn’t click through to his original manifesto? He’s actually got an email address on the trade publication’s site and this is either a gag post, or he’s a flat out nutter:

      9. Ban the internet in the city of Chicago and require folks to buy newspapers.

      10. Change the name back to the Sears Tower.

      1. Oh no, I did click through. That’s why I said, “you decide.” Because…it’s either a gag, or he’s fucking crazy. I truly don’t know. There’s too much “not crazy” regulatory shit in it. And I mean…it makes no sense at all for him to like, try to expose the absurdity of medallions or something…I mean, I really don’t get it.

        1. I would almost say it’s a false flag, but the guy seems to be part of their editorial staff. I suppose it’s not that unreasonable that a complete nutter could be on the editorial staff of a metropolitan trade publication, but the horseless carriage thing is just so close to the buggywhip joke.

    1. We can stop calling girls bossy but in return we can stop calling boys who play with toy guns future mass killers. Fair?

      1. uhh…I’ve heard guys called bossy and bitchy before, so I don’t see how it’s always gendered.

        1. I agree. I just was pointing out how the people who are so concerned about the feelings of girls are totally okay with the entire society constantly insulting boys.

        2. Well, referring to a guy as “bitchy” is a small form of emasculation – like a football coach calling his players “ladies”. Bob is being bitchy, women are bitchy and therefore Bob is just being a little girl about what he’s bitching about.

          1. Bob is being bitchy, women are bitchy and therefore Bob is just being a little girl about what he’s bitching about.

            But is it a reflection of some kind of inherit nature of femininity or a statement about the lesser standards we hold women to?

            1. I don’t know. I wouldn’t say for sure about the motivations (although I have my theories) behind it or what (if anything) to do about it.

              But it doesn’t take too hard a look to see that there are often different vocabularies applied to men and women.

              1. But it doesn’t take too hard a look to see that there are often different vocabularies applied to men and women.

                Which makes sense, considering they are held to different standards. Oddly, feminists would rather address the symptoms than the cause of lower standards of responsibility. In fact, they seem dedicated to increasing the gap.

                1. It’s how they make their money. You don’t think any activist group gets donations if everything’s kinda sorta almost okay?

                  1. You don’t think any activist group gets donations if everything’s kinda sorta almost okay?

                    See: MADD

                    1. lol. I should change that to “You don’t think any activist group gets donations if they say everything’s kinda sorta almost okay?”

                    2. Guys, the “oddly” was sarcastic. I’m no more confused about their motives in this than I am in the dropped support for the ERA.

                    3. It’s the early Links posting – screws everything up.

        3. “I think we confused mac’s bossiness for brains.”

    2. Marcotte, bitchy and bossy.

      1. I don’t really see the negative in calling women bitchy or bossy. It’s imo equal to calling a guy a dick or controlling. While they all have negative connotations sometimes, frequently they can be positive. For example, if I needed the services of a criminal defense attorney (whether male or female) I might prefer they were either a bit of a bitch or a dick.

    3. “Son of a bossy!” just doesn’t sound right. Neither does “he bossied me out in front of everyone.”

      1. Sounds pretty right to me.

      2. “Geez, Marcotte, why do you always have to be such a bossy about this stuff?”

    4. No, see, bossy is very specific. It refers to certain girls who give orders without any proved authority or qualification. So the five year old who says, “Jimmy, you’ll be the farmer and Johnny you’ll be the coachman and Jane will be the wicked-step-sister and I’ll be the princess” without asking anyone if they wanted to play or whether they wanted their parts. Boys don’t get that way because about age 5 or 6 a bossy boy will make a statement like that to a larger and/or older boy and get an object lesson in what happens when you attempt to assert authority without establishing credibility. At the very least, he’ll have to answer the threat, “make me”. When a girl gets told this, her recourse is often “I’ll tell [adult of authority].” So yeah, it is totally gendered because boys can’t borrow adult authority and maintain leadership positions, for the most part.

      1. That’s a pretty good explanation of something I’ve never even tried to explain.

        1. Speaking of bossy…

          Kevin Bateman Rachel Maddow is my new addiction!
          19 hours ago ? Like ? 4

          1. How terrible, to have a Maddow monkey on your back. I hope he gets the help he needs.

    5. Sure, bossy (adj) is a synonym for bitch (n). Sorry I didn’t get past that piece of COMPLETE FUCKING RETARDATION.

    6. If “bossy” is now unacceptable, what will be the new word for someone who “unwarrantedly feels entitled to dictate to their peers”?

      1. “feminist”

      2. Way to boil down my wall’o’text into a pithy statement. Is it bitchy for me to be jealous while congratulating you?

        1. Not really, I kind of distilled down your comment to make mine.

  39. Not the side of the criminal justice system he wanted to work on.

  40. Former Playboy playmate gets two years in jail for tax fraud

    Her crime: not declaring the gifts she received from her 92 year old boyfriend

    German tax officials continued their clampdown on high-profile tax fraudsters this week with a court in Frankfurt ordering a former Playboy playmate of the year to be jailed for two and a half years over 1 million Euro tax fraud.

    Swetlana Maslowskaya, 32, dressed in a black suit and striped shirt, burst into tears on Wednesday when she was told that she would spend a year in jail before any chance of release.

    The decision to jail Maslowskaya, who was playmate of the year in 2002, came after it was discovered that she had accepted at least $2.5 million gifts from her 90-year-old lover, the German brewery heir Bruno Schubert.

    This included cash sums but also cars, jewellery, exotic holidays, shopping sprees and an apartment in Salzburg which she later sold without paying tax.

    Maslowskaya gave up her modelling career when she became the girlfriend of Schubert.

    The Playmate met the married beer tycoon in 2004, according to Bild.

    Always give the state its cut.

    1. That is a serious draw back to the income tax. The best argument for the VAT is not all of the bullshit efficiency arguments usually given. The best argument is that eliminating the income tax would then get the government out of taxing gifts.

      1. It would also get their noses out of most people’s business.

        1. Yes and no. The government would still be all over businesses making sure they didn’t dodge the tax. And they would no doubt be after individuals to make sure that no private transaction was immune. There is also the issue of what is a sale and what is an in kind transaction.

          It wouldn’t be perfect.

          1. Oh yeah, I forgot how the VAT worked.

      2. That’s a nice idea but is here any country with a VAT that also does not have an income tax?

        1. No. And that is why I don’t support a VAT.

        2. Rewrite the 16th amendment to forbid an income tax. (repeal and replace, whatever)

      3. Of course, eliminating income TAX and also not instituting a VAT would be even better.

    2. That said, unlike a lot of former playmates who look like they have been road hard and put up wet, she is fucking spectacular.

      And she got $2.5 million dollars in gifts. She had to have known she had to declare that.

      1. Or at least try to be a non-resident for tax purposes…

      2. She should have used the Steve Martin defense: “Whoops, I forgot.” And then cried and worked on getting a male auditor.

      3. Playboy was Photoshopping before Photoshopping was a thing. Having met a few fashion models in person, the way they look IRL is jarring to say the least.

    3. Spread your legs hon, and get ready to be f_d by the State.

  41. “The city is moving forward and will steamroll our industry if we don’t act in earnest. They did it to my grandfather more than a hundred years ago when they destroyed his horse-drawn-carriage business by allowing horseless machines to carry people around the city,” he wrote.

    My stomache hurts from laughing at this.

    Seriously.

    1. Won’t someone please think of the phonograph-needle manufacturers?

  42. Kevin Bacon on Eighties Awareness

    Sounds like hell

    Related? Kids React to Rotary Phones

      1. Sounds about right

      2. Which leads to sexting. Make the students keep their phones in a Faraday cage to prevent it – the modern version of the chaperones making sure kids aren’t dancing too close to each other.

      3. Dancing always sucked.
        But how do they fistfight?

    1. “You kids will never know the comfort of parachute pants”.

  43. 3:34 PM posting?

    Fuck.

    Roseanne Barr is a cunt. Why doesn’t someone tweet her address?

    Cunt.

    Hey.

    Lou Reed is dead?

    http://music.cbc.ca/#/blogs/20…..s-Lou-Reed

    Notice in the tribute song ‘Walk on the wild side’ how they cut out the word ‘colored’ in ‘and the colored girls sing.’

    So typically PC Canadian.

    1. Et tu, Studio Q?

    2. What did they replace it with? Or is it now just “and the ___ girls sing”.

      So it “colored” supposed to be offensive now? It sounds rather dated, but I don’t think it has ever been an insult. Or is it racist to mention the existence of race now if you are a white person who is not talking about how guilty you feel about being white?

      1. So it “colored” supposed to be offensive now?

        It’s been that way for years now

        1. Huh. I thought it just made you sound old and out of touch, like “negro”.

        2. So what does the C in NAACP stand for these days?

        3. Colored is offense, people of color is fine. That is, if you’re a person of color (but decidedly not a colored person). If you’re not a person of color, meaning that you’re white, you should just sit there and act ashamed.

      2. They just dropped it.

    3. Way to light the Ken signal.

  44. Ukraine’s Head Visits U.S.

    I’ll be impressed when the rest of Ukraine’s body visits.

    1. Well, I doubt Russia will let the bits it has go…

  45. Glenn Ford, who spent 30 years behind bars and on death row in Louisiana for a murder he did not commit, is now a free man.

    He shouldn’t have taken that 3:10 to Yuma.

    1. You think Superman’s Earth dad would get more courtesy.

  46. Cool. The power just flickered and then I heard a transformer explode. I mean, probably not cool for the local power grid, but I could probably figure out how far away the station was the flicker versus the sound arrival.

      1. Approximately one, so somewhere between 300 and 800 yards, probably.

  47. How a middle-aged economist became the most unlikely porn star on XVideos (SFW)

    Given the popularity of the student-teacher scenario in porn, it’s hard not to expect Taylor to loosen his tie, summon a buxom co-ed, and sodomize her next to a bust of Milton Friedman while murmuring “supply and demand” puns. But the video is decidedly SFW, which makes its appearance on a tube site all the more jarring.

    Judging by the comments section on xvideos, the rest of the Internet seemed to share our befuddlement:

    “What the holy hell is something like this doing on Xvideos?”

    “When does the porn start, I’m near the end and no action yet? 🙁 ”

    Some enterprising viewers, however, tried to make the best of the situation:

    “such a dirty talker”

    “The Teaching Company might not have the production values of Digital Playground or Vivid, and they might not have the chicks either, but whatever, I came twice watching this.”

    1. Why did they need to hire an actual teacher to play one in a porn movie?

      1. They didn’t

  48. And something else happened…

    A Philadelphia police officer was charged Wednesday in connection with an incident last year involving an Iraq War veteran.

    Officer Kevin Corcoran, 33, was patrolling Center City about 2 a.m. last March 31 when a group of pedestrians yelled that he had made an illegal turn.

    Corcoran, a nine-year veteran, got out of his police SUV and began arguing with the pedestrians, and several onlookers began recording him on their cell phones.

    The officer is accused of slapping a phone from Roderick King’s hands and cursing at him, saying, “Don’t f*cking touch me.”

    He continued walking toward King, who investigators said kept his hands in front of him and never touched the officer.

    Corcoran shoved the Iraq veteran against the side of his SUV, handcuffed him, and threw him into the back of his cruiser.

    1. Alright. So we’ve got the hero tree defined: veteran then cop then firefighter then civilians.

      1. Yeah, I doubt my status as veteran will really protect me from the cops if it comes down to it.

        1. Well, at least your abuser/murderer will get indicted.

  49. Yet another pundit confuses the stories he submitted to literotica with political analysis.

    In a blog post at AmericanThinker.com, anti-LGBT activist ? and purported “ex-gay” convert to heterosexuality ? Robert Oscar Lopez wrote Wednesday that gay men plan to use surrogate mothers to bear their children as “breeding slaves.”

    Gay blogger Joe.My.God. reported that in a post called “Breeders: How Gay Men Destroyed the Left,” Lopez envisioned a dystopian future where women are nothing more than prisoners to an elite overclass of gay men.

    “Gay men are men,” he wrote, and such, they eschew the company of women.

    “Gestational surrogacy is a dream come true for woman-hating chauvinists who are bound to congregate under such an umbrella,” he said.

    “Men enjoy all the ‘phallic’ privilege that the bourgeois patriarchy can provide” under this system, he said, “and women are put in their place. Not even in the kitchen, no ? in a barracks somewhere, patrolled by goons who will snatch away their babies whenever the men demand it.”

    1. I’m sure the three different female friends who have offered to surrogate for me if I ever want kids did so because industrial patriarchal slavery or something.

      1. While this one isn’t as bad as the diaper one, it still reeks of fetish porn.

      2. This looks like the result of a mind-meld between ROL and Andra Dworkin.

    2. What are the 90% (or so) of heterosexual men up to while the gay men are lording it over the women? Or have all men turned in this dys/u/topitan future? The author seems weirdly preoccupied with the mating habits of gay men.

      1. The hetero men will be in camps (in Aspen, Fire Island and penned up in Castro and Greenwich Village) being guarded night and day by drag queens wearing gold lame` and Carmen Miranda fruit hats. Fed on a thin gruel of salad, perrier and an excellent chardonnay three times a day (we don’t give them Brunch ‘cos we’re eeeeevil like that)

        Forget the New World Order – this is the FAAAAAAABUlOUS!! World Order.

        1. Wait, will there be disco naps!?

  50. Tons of admitting the truth from the idiots today.

    Feeling revulsion at the killing and eating of a person’s family pet and none at the same act when it concerns a pig on a farm is just human nature. None of us have perfectly consistent morals and we all draw our lines somewhere.

    I wonder if anyone’s ever told her about libertarians?

  51. I’m a fucking indian woman.

    There were a couple of minutes of pleasant response, with co-panelists and Mindy co-stars Ike Barinholtz and Adam Pally earnestly praising their female cast members. But by then, Kaling had lost patience: “I look at shows on TV, and this is going to just seem defensive, but I’m just gonna say it: I’m a fucking Indian woman who has her own fucking network television show, OK?”

    You idiots. Why do you keep taking what we say as true? Don’t you know that this is only used to bash white men?

    1. I’m confused. Jezebel is on her side for calling out ‘double-standard bull shit’ they apparently excel at?

      1. They’re lying about this “double standard”. It exists in the opposite way they’re saying. It’s what they do. When confronted by reality, lie.

        and no one asks any of the shows I adore ? and I won’t name them because they’re my friends ? why no leads on their shows are women or of color, and I’m the one that gets lobbied about these things.

        Tell that to Jerry Seinfield, Lorne Michaeles, and the dozens of other white men getting this question constantly.

  52. President Barack Obama reportedly will announce tomorrow that the federal government is expanding the number of salaried employees who qualify for overtime.

    So, after cutting the pensions of military retirees, not only are they giving civilian feds a pay raise, they’re also going to be giving them more overtime as well.

    Sure, that’s totally fair. Nobody rewards his friends and punishes his enemies like this fucking piece of garbage does.

  53. Feminist roundtable discussion of cultural appropriation.

    Short version, forcing me to use logic is racist and “whitesplaining”.

    1. Ok, portmanteaus have officially jumped the shark.

    2. Fuck. I was stupid enough to read some of that while I am also trying to eat.

  54. A Fark politics thread wherin they argue that they’re not unthinkingly progressive, just intelligent.

    And it’s one of the largest non-Zimmerman related threads in Fark’s history. They are really invested in the idea that they’re not progressives.

    1. Let’s see if I can find any projection

      [Takei voice]

      Oh myyyyyyyy…..

      Right wingers just aren’t aware of how silly everyone else thinks they are because they only read and watch right wing things. Like an Ayn Rand blog for instance.

  55. Fark is the legendary lost city of Derparado:

    [Libertarianism] doesn’t recognize the importance of regulation in the face of multiple scandals like the poisoning of our lakes and streams by energy companies and the banking bubble. All those events happened under the nose of pro-business, anti-tax, anti-regulatory governments.

  56. The Church of Proglotology

    Most of the big religions have a low bar for membership. Islam and evangelical Christianity require nothing more then the spoken word to convert. But even those religions have at least a few rules and rituals you have to half-ass to stay a member.

    Enter the Church of Proglotology. Being a prog doesn’t require anything at all. All you have to do is call yourself one and, presto! You automatically become a good and wise person in the eyes of other progs.

    After that, all you have to do is mouth the right slogans from time to time. And it doesn’t matter at all what you do. You don’t have to vote. You don’t have to give. You don’t have to work. Hell, you can even be a complete scumbag and still be in good standing.

    Yeah, it’s pretty easy to see why it’s such a popular group.

  57. There is a dude that knows what is going on. Wow.

    http://www.Anon-VPN.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.