Bowe Bergdahl and Taliban Insights From Anand Gopal

|

While the Department of Defense reports that the initial Bowe Bergdahl investigation was inconclusive, author Anand Gopal suggests that there is more to the situation than what the media has been reporting. Watch "What Afghans Think About Bergdahl, the Taliban, and U.S. Intervention: Q&A with Author Anand Gopal," produced by Tracy Oppenhiemer. Original release date was June 24, 2014. The original writeup is below.

"Given the current news of the prisoner swap with Bergdahl and the five Taliban that have been released from Guantanamo, I think it's really important for us to come to terms with the fact that the terms we use like 'terrorist' really don't even make sense if you look at it from the Afghan point of view," says Anand Gopal, author of the new book, No Good Men Among the Living. "It's a lot more complex, it's a lot more fluid, and there are local politics that you have to take into account."

In addition to talking about Bergdahl, Gopal sat down with Reason TV's Tracy Oppenheimer to discuss U.S. intervention in Afghanistan, the current nation-building efforts (or lack thereof), and how the locals have coped with regime change in recent years.

"All sides have blood on their hands," says Gopal. "For people in the countryside, it's really not about supporting one side or another, it's about finding a way to survive."

About 6 minutes.

Produced by Tracy Oppenheimer. Camera by Josh Swain and Amanda Winkler.

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube Channel for notifications when new material goes live.

Advertisement

NEXT: Don't You Dare Criticize Officers For Shooting Dogs, Whines SLC Top Cop

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. Valerie Jarrett won’t rule out run for office:
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/…..95823.html

    She doesn’t have any idea that she completely sucks, does she?

    1. Doesn’t that sort of… make her perfect for public service?

    2. Why the hell not, for all intents and purposes the Svengali is already in office now.

      And won’t endorse Hillary.

      Ha-ha, big shocker there.

      Tipsy Hillary dubs Obama ‘incompetent and feckless,’ a national ‘joke,’ book claims.

      “When her friends asked Hillary to tell them what she thought ? really thought ? about the president she had served for four draining years, she lit into Obama with a passion that surprised them all,” Mr. Klein wrote, citing unnamed sources.

      “The thing with Obama is that he can’t be bothered, and there is no hand on the tiller half the time,” Mrs. Clinton reportedly said. “That’s the story of the Obama presidency. No hand on the [expletive] tiller. Obama has turned into a joke.”

      Mrs. Clinton reportedly ranted about the IRS targeting of the tea party and the Justice Department’s tapping of phone records from the Associated Press, the New York Post reported, citing Mr. Klein’s book.

      “All these scandals,” she said, according to Mr. Klein’s sources. “Obama’s allowed his hatred for his enemies to screw him the way Nixon did. ? [He’s] incompetent and feckless.”

      1. Working link here.

      2. This is really no surprise.

        I don’t think it’s a big secret that the Clintons viewed Obama as a Johnny-come-lately who leapfrogged Hillary in his bid for president.

        Unfortunately, the Clintons underestimated how powerful the he’s-black-and-he-speaks-so-well psychology worked in his party.

        1. For once, I completely agree with Hillary.

          1. Yeah, I am a bit taken aback. I am agreeing with the Hildebeast. What alternate universe is this?

            1. Still would not make me vote for her.

            2. I think I know what alternate universe this is.

              Never mind.

      3. I’m going to have to call bullshit on this Klein book. All these quotes sound like they come from a movie script, not like something a person would actually say.

        Obama’s allowed his hatred for his enemies to screw him the way Nixon did. ? [He’s] incompetent and feckless.

        I mean, seriously? This sounds like what a conservative would imagine Hilary Clinton saying.

        Also, the fact that he uses ‘unnamed sources’ for all of these incredibly suspect and stilted quotes makes me question if anything Klein is saying is true.

        1. Jesus Christ, I’m actually going to have to agree with Media Matters on this.

          Klein: Chelsea Clinton Was Conceived Through Rape. In Ed Klein’s 2005 book The Truth About Hillary, he alleged that Chelsea Clinton was conceived during a vacation in Bermuda where Bill Clinton raped his wife. According to the footnotes, this claim was predicated on an interview with a single anonymous source who supposedly “was with the Clintons in Bermuda.” [Media Matters, 6/23/05]

          Klein Later Walked Back False Rape Allegation. On the June 22, 2005 edition of Sean Hannity’s radio program, Hannity questioned Klein about the claim made in his book that former-President Bill Clinton had raped Hillary Clinton. Klein walked-back the assertion, time noting that his “source never said Bill raped Hillary” and claiming that the original statement the allegation was predicated on may have been made in “jest” by Bill Clinton. Throughout the interview and in later appearances, Klein changed his story on who his sources for the claim were.

          This guy does not sound trustworthy.

          1. Ouch.

          2. I agree. It’s just a hit book published to the run-up to the next election.

            Sort of like the shit you’ll see about Rand Paul.

            “Aqua Buddah Exposed: Rand Paul’s Scheme for America”

        2. She was drunk, supposedly.

        3. Yes, feckless is not a word heard in most tipsy conversations, at least from my experience.

          1. Althouse posted some other great quotes that she rightfully points out sound completely fake.

            “That story won’t hold up,” Bill said. “I know,” Hillary said. “I told the president that.” “It’s an impossible story,” Bill said. “I can’t believe the president is claiming it wasn’t terrorism. Then again, maybe I can. It looks like Obama isn’t going to allow anyone to say that terrorism has occurred on his watch.”

            This adviser continued: “Hillary told Obama, ‘Mr. President, that story isn’t credible. Among other things, it ignores the fact that the attack occurred on 9/11.’ But the president was adamant. He said, ‘Hillary, I need you to put out a State Department release as soon as possible.'”

            I do not believe that this conversation ever happened.

            1. Probability of above being neocon slash-fic: 10000%

              1. I could believe someone in the Billary camp putting this out, because the alternative makes Hillary out to be “incompetent and feckless”.

          2. Maybe not among student-age people like yourself, Bo, where I assume most tipsy behavior involves photographing passed-out people with words written on their faces. Some of us a bit further along in life actually can still use a wide vocabulary while arguing politics with a friend over Scotch and cigars.

            1. I’ll concede my experience doesn’t cover a lot of things. I’m pretty sure I’ve never seen someone drink a Scotch at a bar, for instance, other than a prof who we ran into on one weekday evening

              1. Unless you count a four horseman as a scotch

            2. Yeah, but Klein is completely untrustworthy and uses nothing but unsourced quotations.

              I mean:

              According to a party guest who provided Klein with a reconstruction of a conversation between Hillary, Bill and Chelsea, beginning with Chelsea asking if Obama was going to back Vice President Biden in 2016:

              “‘It’s going to be a dogfight,’ replied Bill, who had already begun assembling opposition research on Biden. “I’m absolutely convinced that the Obamas have no intention of supporting your mother. It could be that they’ll get behind [John] Kerry or Biden. But, you know, we’re smarter than Biden and the rest of them. If Old Joe comes at us, we’ll clean the floor with him.”

              ‘They say he’s looking around for a candidate who’s just like him. Someone relatively unknown. Someone with a fresh face. He’s convinced himself that he’s been a brilliant president, and he wants to clone himself?to find his Mini-Me. He’s hunting for someone to succeed him, and he believes the American people don’t want to vote for someone who’s been around for a long time. He thinks that your mother and I are what he calls ‘so twentieth century.’ He’s looking for another Barack Obama.'”

              Where did Klein get this information? Who told him? Who the fuck talks like this?

              1. It’s like Michael Bay level dialogue, less the assplosions and falling buildings.

                1. Then I’m even less likely to watch the movie.

        4. Eh, I’m only moderately skeptical. I’m sure he talked to a lot of people who refused to be quoted or recorded. I’m sure some of what they said was b.s., and some was paraphrased and sometimes amped up by Klein for dramatic purposes. But I’m also sure a lot of it is basically true. The bad blood between the Obamas and Clintons is pretty well known, from multiple sources.

          1. Okay, but this is a guy who claimed Hillary Clinton is a lesbian because she happens to hang out with some lesbians. Which, I guess, would make me gay since sometimes I talk to Jesse.

            He’s utterly disreputable and when a disreputable person writes a book consisting entirely of unsourced quotations that read like a right wing wet dream, you’ll have to excuse my skepticism.

            Bill O’Reilly won’t have Edward Klein on his show because he thinks he’s too sleazy and neocon John Podhoretz referred to his book on Hillary as ‘a smear for profit.’ O’Reilly and Podhoretz are hardly the people who would attack an anti-Hillary book unless it contained no redeeming features.

            If Edward Klein told me the sky was blue I’d have to check and make sure.

            1. Which, I guess, would make me gay since sometimes I talk to Jesse.

              That’s not what makes you gay…

              1. Wait, are you saying I’m gay because of all the dudes I have sex with?

                That’s a bit of a stretch.

                1. Not the sex, but making out with them and cuddling afterward definitely makes you gay.

                  1. Not the sex, but making out with them and cuddling afterward definitely makes you gay.

                    No, that would make him one of my girlfriends.

                    1. Stop hitting on me, Paul. I’m starting to get weirded out, even if it is kind of flattering.

                2. Having sex with dudes doesn’t make you gay so must be something else.

          2. “The bad blood between the Obamas and Clintons is pretty well known”

            Yeah, I have no problem believing Hillary trashed Obama drunk or otherwise. The way its conveyed does seem contrived though especially the Nixon reference. She might criticize getting caught but not going after the tea party especially to her “friends”.

    3. Please, please do it Valerie.

      1. That’s kind of my take on it, too. I would love for her to get a little more scrutiny.

        1. Yeah, just like all that scrutiny that Obama got in 08 right?

  2. So, the US had a chance to essentially get rid of the Taliban and completely muffed it. Let me go find my shocked face.

    1. This may be true, or it may be the complaints of people whose advice the authorities didn’t take, and are now complaining to journalists that If Only They’d Done What I Said…

    2. I take the administrations governing incompetence as a given, but I always thought they must be politically astute until the Bergdahl affair. They didn’t even think to inquire into the circumstances surrounding his disappearance and subsequent capture? Sheesh.

      1. I think it’s a lack of understanding. They thought: “Hey, we’ll get a soldier back! Those rednecks will be grateful, right? Yellow ribbons and all that crap.”

        1. I think you’re absolutely correct. I’ll only add that I think there was arrogance (why talk to the guy’s peers from his unit about what happened and what he was like, they’re little people) likely also at play.

          In a her recent interview on NPR’s Fresh Air Hillary discussed her opinion, as former Secretary of State, of the Manning and Snowden leaks. It wasn’t that she denounced them that struck me (though that was bad), it was that she actually mentioned that part of her denunciation is that they were ‘low level’ workers who made the decision to leak the information. Her condescending attitude for those who have little power actually thinking they could act on some important matter was palpable.

          1. “But as we know, there was a decision made by a fairly low-ranking – Private Manning – a fairly low-ranking intelligence officer based in Iraq to download all of these cables and to provide them to the WikiLeaks site.”

            http://wypr.org/post/hillary-c…..-interview

  3. Woohoo! Founding day for the new Caliphate!
    Looking forward to their entry in the next World Cup.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..ml?hpid=z5

    Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!

    1. It is starting to look like climate change legislation isn’t going to be his legacy.

    2. ISIS versus Al Qaeda. Nice. I suppose the US is going to want a 3 way.

  4. “I think it’s really important for us to come to terms with the fact that the terms we use like ‘terrorist’ really don’t even make sense if you look at it from the Afghan point of view”

    The Bush Administration worked really hard to change the definition of “terrorist” for media purposes. It used to be that a terrorist was someone who specifically targeted civilians on purpose. Actually, that’s still the definition as far as I’m concerned.

    When the United States targets a wedding party because it believes there are terrorist targets there, that isn’t really terrorism because we do not specifically target innocent children at a wedding party–they just happen to be in the way.

    But I can see how that nuance would be lost on local Pakistanis and Afghans if we’re going by the Bush/Obama Administrations’ definition of terrorism–where everyone who attacks U.S. forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, or pretty much anywhere else in the world.

    I.e., I suspect the reason the locals think the Obama Administration is just arbitrarily calling anyone who opposes U.S. forces “terrorist” may be because the Obama Administration is just arbitrarily calling anyone who opposes U.S. forces “terrorist”.

    1. Since the United States is still, despite democrat efforts to the contrary, the freest nation on earth, and was responding to unprovoked aggression, I’m not going to get too uptight over expanding the definition of a word a little bit if it helps to paint the emotional picture for people that accurately reflects what kinds of people these are (those who are attacking us I mean). Since they are barbarians who attacked us, we have every right to call them whatever we wish, and to use whatever means are at our disposal, to eliminate the threat.

      1. “Since the United States is still, despite democrat efforts to the contrary, the freest nation on earth.”

        I wouldn’t go so far as to say that.

        At 707 per 100,000, we have the highest incarceration rate per capita in the world.

        As of next year, the IRS will start going after people who don’t buy health insurance.

        We’re much less free economically than we were, even, before Obama took office.

        Our NSA tracks our phone calls with few, if any, real restrictions.

        According to the Heritage Foundation, we’re not even in the top 10 in terms of economic freedom.

        http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

        “and was responding to unprovoked aggression, I’m not going to get too uptight over expanding the definition of a word a little bit if it helps to paint the emotional picture for people that accurately reflects what kinds of people these are”

        Attacking troops isn’t terrorism no matter what you want the American people to hear in the media.

        Incidentally, Saddam Hussein didn’t have an active WMD program, and there wasn’t any Al Qaeda in Iraq to speak of before we invaded either–no matter what bullshit you want the American people to believe for their own good.

        A thing is what it is and not something else–and attack troops is not terrorism.

        1. “Attacking troops isn’t terrorism”

          I’ll disagree with this as an absolute. Many of the Taliban aren’t terrorists because of things like actual open warfare against military targets in their own country and identifiable formations, apparel, equipment, etc.

          But sending in a woman with a bomb strapped to her chest into a military mess hall is still terrorism, even though the target is military.

          1. “But sending in a woman with a bomb strapped to her chest into a military mess hall is still terrorism, even though the target is military.”

            That may be murder. If it isn’t a war crime, maybe it should be.

            I’m not sure it’s terrorism.

            The purpose of terrorism is to spread terror among civilians–is it not?

            The purpose of blowing up a bunch of occupying soldiers while in their mess hall probably isn’t terrorism–it’s probably trying to end the occupation.

            Even when I look at the Khobar Towers bombing… I think those kinds of examples are a little convoluted becasue that may not be a good example of a terrorist act–but it was committed by terrorists. Which is to say, the act was committed by a group that does target civilians specifically in order to spread terror.

            But even then, it isn’t attacking our troops that makes them terrorists–it’s all the attacks they’ve carried out against civilians that makes them terrorists.

            If there’s an Al Qaeda operative in Afghanistan who’s fighting against American troops there, I have no problem calling that Al Qaeda operative a terrorist–since he is part of a terrorist organization. But Pashtuns from Pakistan coming to Afghanistan to fight against American troops does not make them terrorists. …maybe not even if they’re committing a murderous war crime–like bombing a mess hall and killing American soldiers.

            1. Anyway, my objection is to the powers that be calling people names to justify doing things that may not be in America’s interests. If occupying Afghanistan is no longer in our interests, calling that rose by any other name–like terrorist–doesn’t change anything. That’s just more Obama word games, like calling government spending an “investment”.

              1. Half of politics is semantics.

            2. Incorrect. Terrorist can target military or civilians. Terrorist actions are ones undertaken to achieve political goals via fear. If your troops don’t want to fifth due to fear the terrorist are achieving their goals.

              1. “If your troops don’t want to fight due to fear the terrorist are achieving their goals.”

                Show me an example of a soldier who isn’t a terrorist then.

                Has there ever been a military engagement in the history of the world in which the soldiers–on both sides–didn’t want to inspire fear in their opponents?

                Wouldn’t that make every soldier in the history of the world a terrorist?

                I’m not buyin’ that. Certainly not just because the Bush and Obama administrations found it politically convenient to say so. The way presidents use words doesn’t change their meaning–my mind isn’t under their control.

                Just for the record, though, I’m not saying these people we’re fighting in Afghanistan aren’t evil incarnate, either. I’m certainly not supporting them. But the ones who aren’t targeting civilians and/or aren’t members of an organization that does? They’re not terrorists.

                Here in America, child molesters, rapists, and arsonists aren’t terrorists either. They’re despicable people and should probably be put out of our misery, but they’re not terrorists. Even if Obama found it politically advantageous to call them that, they still wouldn’t be terrorists.

    2. if we’re going by the Bush/Obama Administrations’ definition of terrorism–where everyone who attacks U.S. forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, or pretty much anywhere else in the world.

      The PR nuance aside the effect of labeling all of our opponents as terrorists is a fig leaf for the US government so it can justify not treating them according to the terms laid out in the Geneva Convention.

      1. It’s to justify whatever it is they want to do.

        If average Americans think of them as terrorists, they’re less likely to question our continued war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan.

        So they’re gonna call them terrorists–whether they’re terrorists or not.

        There are plenty of other justifications for war, by the way, other than terrorism.

  5. Somewhat related…

    There’s a new ISIS video where they say, in effect, hey, we’re not megalomaniacs or anything, but we’re changing our name to just Islamic State. Oh, and we’ve restored the Caliphate, and our leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is the new Caliph. You can call him “Prince of the Believers,” because he’s now the ruler of all Muslims in the world.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

    1. Bardas seems to have beaten me to it, but I have a cooler summary, he just made a lame joke about the World Cup.

    2. Jumping the gun on the whole “worldwide caliphate” thing just a scotch, aren’t they?

      Murderous ideologues are so cute at that age…

    3. Party like it’s 699!

  6. “All sides have blood on their hands”

    So true, NAZIs killed Americans, Americans killed NAZIs. There’s just no way to determine who’s right. One mans NAZI is another’s freedom fighter or something.

    1. You know who else had blood on their hands….

      Oh, wait…

      Never mind.

  7. “Ahmed Abu Khatallah should be treated as a war criminal and sent to the U.S. military prison at Guant?namo Bay, Cuba, Rep. Mike McCaul (R-Texas) said Sunday.

    “”We have brought a criminal terrorist and given him due process under our Constitution here in the United States in the national’s capital. I do not think that is the right approach in prosecuting the war on terrorism,” the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.””

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/…..91284.html

  8. “Ahmed Abu Khatallah should be treated as a war criminal and sent to the U.S. military prison at Guant?namo Bay, Cuba, Rep. Mike McCaul (R-Texas) said Sunday.

    “”We have brought a criminal terrorist and given him due process under our Constitution here in the United States in the national’s capital. I do not think that is the right approach in prosecuting the war on terrorism,” the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.””

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/…..91284.html

  9. Julie Borowski ?@JulieBorowski 5h
    You can’t adequately address poverty without mentioning the breakdown of the family.
    Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More

  10. Soccer is a faggot “sport” the enjoyment of which is only utilized in America for douchebag leftists as a tribal signal to other leftists of their supposed international sophistication and euro-centrism, to distinguish them from us ordinary disgusting Republican yokels who watch actual sports, such as football (with no “American” tacked onto the front of it – it’s just football). Ann Coulter was completely correct in her article.

    1. Poor effort.

    2. The shemale giraffe isn’t even a good troll. So, you’re a cover troll? How sad.

      D-

      1. Agree with the letter grade, but disagree about Skeletorina. She’s a remarkably successful troll in all honesty. She’s laughing all the way to the bank.

        1. Oh sure. There’s a large market for that stuff. And she’s been doing it for soooo long that she has become quite good at it.

          1. I’m convinced Ann Coulter is the world’s greatest performance artist and has simply been pretending to be a crazy conservative all these years.

            She’ll be remembered as our generation’s Dali 100 years from now.

  11. Sleeping kitty dreams, probably about chasing wildebeests through the Serengeti.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrdtxQvqtxU

    1. KITTEHZ! Aw, there’s nothing cuter than sleeping animals.

  12. Zzzzzz…why, yes, Mila Kunis, you can rub my belly…zzzzz….

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AHyhhdyMVo

  13. Royal Dutch Airlines causes controversy with parting shot at Mexicans, people are profoundly and stupid and look for stuff to get offended by

    I thought it was hilarious.

    1. “I guess our offense was Gouda nuff for you.”

      “Our dikes are way more impressive than yours.”

      “We smacked you down like the blades of a windmill knocking down Don Quixote.”

      “Our dope is more fun than your dopes!”

    2. Not a fan of the NED team but I think I’m a fan of KLM now.

    3. Yeah, “Adios amigos” is one of the tamest sports victory taunts I’ve ever heard.

      Anyone who gets completely bent out of shape over that is living their life on a politically correct hair trigger.

    4. Q: What did Davy Crockett say to Jim Bowie at the Alamo when they saw the Mexicans approaching?

      A: “I didn’t know they were putting up drywall today.”

  14. Zzzzz…oh, so you’re a wolf, eh? You want some of this? Huh? Take that! And that! Zzzzzz…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4VoQ77iG1I

  15. British fascists oppose Maria Sharapova selling candy

    The Sugarpova Candy Lounge opened on Wimbledon High Street on 16 June and is selling treats to tennis fans during the championships. Products include Sporty Mix tennis ball-shaped chewing gum, advertised with the slogan: “Serve yourself some fruit flavored gumballs and chew them up on the court. Winning sure is sweet.”

    But the tennis star’s sugary sales pitch coincides with the publication of a report which recommended that people should more than halve their intake of added sugar…

    Professor Tom Sanders, the head of diabetes and nutritional sciences at King’s College London, said: “I find sporting celebrity endorsements of unhealthy foods such as sweets and soft drinks reprehensible. The use of player’s clothing to promote cigarettes was outlawed almost 30 years ago ? now it is time to crackdown on player endorsement of unhealthy foods. Celebrity endorsement has a huge impact on sales to young people who are those most at risk of become obese.”

    Michelle Obama can only dream.

    1. I don’t think it’s surprising that rates of depression have skyrocketed as this sort of busybody has grown more numerous.

      Life isn’t fun if you don’t periodically do shit that’s bad for you. Living to 100 in an anti-septic hell doesn’t strike me as any way for a human being to exist.

      1. The pop-up store is heavily plugged on the Sugarpova Twitter feed and Facebook page. One post showed a picture of two young schoolgirls sitting with exercise books at tables outside the shop as their mothers looked on, with a caption that read: “If you finish your homework, you get a goodie!”

        Incentivizing school performance? THOSE MONSTERS.

        Today the shop’s clientele acknowledged it was a hit with its younger customers. However, Alan Higgins, 86, accompanying his two grandchildren, said the moral question paled in comparison with the “good fun” they had.

        I swear we are only one generation away from kindly old grandfathers like that man getting fined or jailed for the perversion of letting children have fun.

        1. Today the shop’s clientele acknowledged it was a hit with its younger customers. However, Alan Higgins, 86, accompanying his two grandchildren, said the moral question paled in comparison with the “good fun” they had.

          What moral questions? I wasn’t aware that letting your grandchildren eat some candy posed any sort of moral conundrum.

          1. I imagine the question posed to the man was phrased in a way that included the “concerns” of the experts about the morality of advertising candy to kids.

            Like “There are those who say it is wrong to market sugary junk food to children. What are your thoughts on this?”

        2. Holy fuck, this comment:

          J SMITH 15 hours ago
          If people are stupid to buy something just because some so called celebrity promotes it ,then they deserve what they get.

          HELZAPOPPIN 6 hours ago
          If by stupid you mean of low intellect and/or poorly educated then no, they don’t ‘deserve’ to suffer as a result of being ‘had’ by advanced advertising and media marketing techniques.

          Personal responsibility is dead. It’s been a good run, but Western civilization is doomed.

        3. Well I don’t know how you expect to raise our children if they’re not allowed to have any fun.

          1. You’ll be the disciplinarian and I’ll be the fun one.

      2. “Being forced to live for 100 years while doing only those things that those in power over you have planned to the last detail, excluding most luxury items and requiring no dichotomy between public and private life” = A

        if Normal Person, then A = “dystopia”

        if Prog, then A = “paradise”

  16. Kind of creepy-cute: Dog and crow play with ping-pong ball

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqLU-o7N7Kw

  17. I don’t wish to seem intolerant of alternative relationships, but this is downright *unnatural.*

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sumn6flhNtg

    1. FFS get a Facebook page already, Eddie.

      1. You know, if there were more women on this board I’d be getting nicer responses.

      2. It’s better than puppycide links.

  18. Interview with anti-capitalist polemic:

    Q. What you’re describing is not a free market in the least.

    A. There is no market here whatsoever. Any real market is open. Prices are transparent. You can enter it or exit a real market at will. You can compare contracts. So the free market ideology basically leaves us free of markets. The free market ideology is the fastest way to complete concentration of power.

    Q. So the free market ideology has killed markets?

    A. The free market ideology has killed markets.

    Q. There’s a million things I want to ask here. Like, the Tea Party movement. These are small business people. Why aren’t they demanding antitrust enforcement? Their leaders, it seems to me, hate the idea of antitrust enforcement.

    A. Well, libertarians?groups like the Cato Institute, the Libertarian Party as a whole?they’re fronts, they’re the vanguard for the feudalists, for the autocrats. The rank-and-file Tea Party folk, a lot of them I think instinctually…understand that you have to regulate the system to get competition. Anyone who’s actually engaged in business knows that all systems are regulated, anyone who’s engaged in real business goes down to City Hall and they know that you make markets by going and getting rules made and unmade at City Hall.

    1. Oh sweet Jesus, it truly is Newspeak with these people. Here are some quotes from the author Frank is promoting:

      Amazon has so much power that it virtually gets to tell really big companies like Hachette, the French publisher, what to do. You’re gonna sell this book at this price. You’re gonna sell that book at that price. That means Amazon pretty much has the power to determine how many copies of a book a publisher might sell. That’s not citizens trading with one another in an open market setting those prices, that’s a giant corporation setting those prices. Which means what we are witnessing in the U.S. book industry, I think, is a form of top-down government.

      Yes, just like government. Minus the SWAT teams and monopoly on violence.

      All three of these institutions are also, to some extent, governed externally, such as by the need to compete. Miami has to compete with other cities. Harvard has to compete with other universities. But what happens when Alcoa captures complete control over, say, the manufacture of aluminum, as was actually the case until 1945? It then, in essence, has captured the power to govern that entire human activity, and all the people who work in that activity. It decides how much aluminum will be manufactured each year. It decides what aluminum engineers will earn each year. It decides how many aluminum engineers will have jobs. That’s private government.

      1. Also, why the fuck do progs care about a big publishing company like Hachette being forced to lower prices by Amazon? Average people pay less for books at the expense of a major corporation.

        This is the kind of thing progressives would be in favor of if it weren’t for the fact that they’re just fascists who use the specter of corporations in place of the specter of Jews. You could literally just bring out Nazi propaganda and replace the word ‘Jew’ with ‘neo-liberal’ or ‘corporation’ and there would literally be no difference.

    2. “they’re the vanguard for the feudalists, for the autocrats”

      Good grief. Whatever one thinks of libertarians and libertarianism pluses and minuses, no one who actually knows even a little about either should confuse us with ‘feudalists.’

      And one must be amused at how they contrast feudalism with regulation.

    3. Oh, it’s Thomas ‘FUCK KANSAS’ Frank. Of course it’s idiotic, the man has the IQ of a lobotomized 6 year old.

      A. Well, libertarians?groups like the Cato Institute, the Libertarian Party as a whole?they’re fronts, they’re the vanguard for the feudalists, for the autocrats. The rank-and-file Tea Party folk, a lot of them I think instinctually…understand that you have to regulate the system to get competition. Anyone who’s actually engaged in business knows that all systems are regulated, anyone who’s engaged in real business goes down to City Hall and they know that you make markets by going and getting rules made and unmade at City Hall.

      Markets are not created by city hall. You literally have to be a communist to believe this is the case.

      That’s not citizens trading with one another in an open market setting those prices, that’s a giant corporation setting those prices.

      If this were true, then you would expect Amazon to have higher prices than other booksellers. In fact, they have LOWER prices than other booksellers. This is because Amazon needs to push prices low in order to stave off the possibility of another internet company opening and undercutting them.

      When they say Amazon is setting prices, what they’re actually doing is forcing other big companies to sell books AT LOWER COSTS than they want to. That’s what happened with Hachette, they were forced to lower costs below what they wanted.

    4. This Barry Lynn guy is none too bright.

      The problem of weak job creation certainly can’t be due to increased business taxes and regulation, since both were slashed during the Bush years. Nor can the explanation be insufficient consumer demand; throughout most of the last decade, consumers and the federal government engaged in a consumption binge of world-historical proportions.

      Okay, the code of federal regulations grew by 12,000 pages under Bush.

      The Bush team has spent more taxpayer money on issuing and enforcing regulations than any previous administration in U.S. history. Between fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2009, outlays on regulatory activities, adjusted for inflation, increased from $26.4 billion to an estimated $42.7 billion, or 62 percent. By contrast, President Clinton increased real spending on regulatory activities by 31 percent, from $20.1 billion in 1993 to $26.4 billion in 2001.

      Secondly, I love that he mentions that massive consumption binge by governments and it never occurs to him that this governmental consumption binge might be the CAUSE OF the lack of job creation. As government spending has skyrocketed in the last 15 years, job creation has stalled. Apparently this is coincidental.

      1. Heh, look at this comment:

        CyclingFool 1 hour ago
        I buy eyeglasses online at Zenni. I shop at farmer’s markets, buy my milk from a local organic dairy, get eggs from a neighbor. If I weren’t a vegetarian, I’d buy meat directly from a farmer. I uses Tom’s toothpaste and drink beer from the many fine local micro-breweries.

        I live in an unusual place, with an odd combination of libertarian survivalists, old hippies, and young back-to-the-earthers. The blend has produced a strong local food and artisan culture and I take full advantage of it. There is a Walmart, which I go into very rarely. There’s Home Depot, but the close-by and locally owned Ace Hardware gets the bulk of my business for those needs. There’s a Costco and I’m a member.

        However, I am an Amazon Prime member and use Amazon to purchase special items that just aren’t available locally. It is quick and efficient. My much over-committed daughter in a large city uses Amazon almost as a personal shopping assistant. Need a kid’s birthday present for a party in two days? Right to her door in 24 hours or less.

        Amazon’s monopolistic and poor labor practices should be regulated. I’m willing to pay more so that Amazon workers are paid better, just as I pay a premium for the organic produce from my local growers, but please don’t mess with the convenience of Amazon’s business model.

        1. I’m willing to pay more so that Amazon workers are paid better

          Well, I’m not. And you don’t have the right to force that upon me. So go fuck yourself. Or better yet, go cycling on the property of one of those libertarian survivalists without permission so one of them can transplant hot lead slugs into your skull through a high speed injection.

          1. “Well, I’m not. And you don’t have the right to force that upon me.”

            And if he feels that way, he can simply write a check and mail it to the Amazon worker of his choice!

        2. Amazon’s monopolistic and poor labor practices should be regulated. I’m willing to pay more so that Amazon workers are paid better, just as I pay a premium for the organic produce from my local growers, but please don’t mess with the convenience of Amazon’s business model.

          Well, some poor person who gets cheap goods because of Amazon might not be so willing to ‘pay a premium.’ Interesting how progs don’t give a shit about cranking up the prices that the poor have to pay so long as the progressive has the opportunity to get his smug on.

    5. Frank started his political journey as a College Republican,[1] but has come to be highly critical of conservatism, especially the presidency of George W. Bush.

      Converts are always the most zealous.

    6. Reading about libertarians in Salon is like reading about gay people in a Focus on the Family news letter. It’s plainly obvious they haven’t had so much as five-minute conversation with the people they’re writing about, and instead just print whatever awful rumors they heard last week. I haven’t clicked on a Salon link in over five years, and I’m damn proud of that.

  19. Hahahahahahaha. I just checked that article about the cops shooting a dog and someone responded to one of my posts with this:

    Exigent circumstances. He also knocked on the front door, no answer, and continued to search. Every backyard would be a searched area, and no warrant needed for a backyard that is not locked. Until the investigation is concluded and states that he needed a warrant, you are just another loud mouth who needs to learn about your criminal justice system better before talking shit.

    Horse. Shit.

    This fuckhead doesn’t know what exigent circumstances are.

    Exigent circumstances: These are situations where there’s no time to get a warrant because there’s an immediate threat or danger of someone getting hurt or the destruction of evidence. For example, if the police make arrest in the front yard and the homeowner is alerted to their presence, the police may enter the home if they have a reasonable belief that the homeowner is destroying evidence or poses a threat to the officers’ safety

    Exigent circumstances only count if they have reason to believe that there is something going on IN THAT PARTICULAR HOUSE. A missing child does not allow the cops to search every single house in the neighborhood sans warrant. Otherwise the 4th amendment is essentially meaningless.

    1. Why do you hate missing children and want them to die?

      1. They smell bad and won’t get into the back of my van when I offer them candy.

    2. Also, the fourth amendment clearly applies to backyards.

      Cite:

      The zone of privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment is most clearly defined when bounded by the unambiguous physical dimensions of an individual’s home. . . . Indeed, the Fourth Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house, a threshold which police officers generally may not cross without a warrant.” Ingram v City of Colombus, 185 F3d 579, 586-87 (6th Cir. 1999) This firm line has been extended to include the surrounding curtilage of the home.

      So clearly a fenced in backyard, which is ‘surrounding curtilage,’ would be protected under the fourth amendment.

      In response, we argued that a noise complaint and hearing party noise was insufficient to override my client’s 4th Amendment protections.

      Ultimately, the Court sided with our argument, first finding that my client did have a right to privacy in the backyard of the house, and then finding further that the officers violated my client’s 4th Amendment privacy rights.

      Even a noisy party in a backyard is insufficient to allow the cops to search it without a warrant. As such, when the cops have no evidence that the little girl was at this house, they clearly would have had no right to search without a warrant.

      1. Curtilage? How dare you use big words when A CHILD IS MISSING!

        1. Sounds to me like it is time for some serious defenestration.

  20. “Memo: From Nick Hanauer

    “To: My Fellow Zillionaires

    “You probably don’t know me, but like you I am one of those .01%ers, a proud and unapologetic capitalist….

    “…Seeing where things are headed is the essence of entrepreneurship. And what do I see in our future now?

    “I see pitchforks….

    “If we don’t do something to fix the glaring inequities in this economy, the pitchforks are going to come for us. No society can sustain this kind of rising inequality. In fact, there is no example in human history where wealth accumulated like this and the pitchforks didn’t eventually come out. You show me a highly unequal society, and I will show you a police state. Or an uprising. There are no counterexamples. None. It’s not if, it’s when….

    “The most ironic thing about rising inequality is how completely unnecessary and self-defeating it is. If we do something about it, if we adjust our policies in the way that, say, Franklin D. Roosevelt did during the Great Depression?so that we help the 99 percent and preempt the revolutionaries and crazies, the ones with the pitchforks?that will be the best thing possible for us rich folks, too. It’s not just that we’ll escape with our lives; it’s that we’ll most certainly get even richer.”

    http://www.politico.com/magazi…..7CvhPmwJSV

    1. “On June 19, 2013, Bloomberg published an article I wrote called “The Capitalist’s Case for a $15 Minimum Wage.” Forbes labeled it “Nick Hanauer’s near insane” proposal. And yet, just weeks after it was published, my friend David Rolf, a Service Employees International Union organizer, roused fast-food workers to go on strike around the country for a $15 living wage. Nearly a year later, the city of Seattle passed a $15 minimum wage. And just 350 days after my article was published, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray signed that ordinance into law. How could this happen, you ask?

      “It happened because we reminded the masses that they are the source of growth and prosperity, not us rich guys.”

      http://www.politico.com/magazi…..7Cw1PmwJSU

      1. “It happened because we reminded the masses that they are the source of growth and prosperity, not us rich guys.”

        Hmm, I’ve yet to meet a poor person that’s offered me a job. But that belief is understandable when you operate on the caricatured assumption that goods and services fall from the sky onto the laps of privileged capitalists when then merely set an arbitrary price and reap profits.

    2. …”so that we help the 99 percent and preempt the revolutionaries and crazies, the ones with the pitchforks”…

      No one is bothering to hide it any more; it’s a protection racket.

  21. So. . .uh. . .this is a thing.

    I just cannot get enough of the trolling lately. It’s fucking Easter Sunday egg hunt up in here!

    1. Kalzone Kraphole couldn’t spell my forum name correctly on a video that, presumably, took some time to edit; you’d think Kraphole would have noticed the typo in between wiping away any mouth-froth that fell onto the keyboard.

      We’re not dealing with a rocket scientist here.

    2. That’s been a thing for a while. He also actually stalks the Reason Youtube channel so he can post mean things about libertarians whenever a new video is put up.

      1. Of course, by “mean things” Kraphole means “libertarians don’t hate Jews as much as I do”.

      2. Wait so Kaprow isn’t Mary anymore?

    3. I’m not going to waste time on the content; can I presume it’s the same old brain-dead ‘I read a review of Atlas Shrugged, therefore I KNOW about libertarianism’?

      1. No – it’s Mary’s youtube page.

        Since Mary is a mentally ill cat lady, it’s hilariously obsessed with libertarians.

        Isn’t that right, Mary Stack? I know you’re reading this, you sociopath.

        1. One of these days, I’ll recognize the sign of the idjit and never bother to ask again.
          It simply hasn’t been important enough to bother with; not like, oh, the combination of Kirk’s safe:
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaB_G1WNT70
          (yes, Mary, that’s for you; GET A LIFE)

  22. Example of the sorts of vicious stereotypes that the black community are baselessly subjected to:

    black people be blackin’

    1. Sorry, have to try one more time:

      take 2

    2. Shut the fuck up, American.

  23. So, I didn’t get to see the games today. Dutch injury-time penalty: good call, bad call, make-up call, marginal?

    1. Both good call and make-up call.

      Robben, of course, embellished, but Rafa Marquez performed Cardinal Sin #1 of defending in the box: he dove in with his leg and gave the ref the chance to make the call. Definite contact, but not huge. The diving in got Marquez the call.

      The make-up aspect of it was that the Dutch had a much more clear shout for a penalty in the first half mysteriously waved off. One of the Mexican players involved ended up breaking his tibia in the process, too.

      1. Thanks. Jeez, breaking your tibia. Now that WILL sting.

        1. The magic spray couldn’t help it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.