Foreign Policy

Jennifer Rubin's Idea of a Zinger

A boilerplate call for a prudent foreign policy offends the Washington Post blogger.

|

Here's Washington Post neocon Jennifer Rubin with her idea of a zinger:

Rubin could take out a man with just one punch, but she never did like to talk about it all that much.Sometimes it is hard to tell [Barack] Obama and [Rand] Paul apart. Consider this: "History teaches us of the dangers of overreaching, and spreading ourselves too thin, and trying to go it alone without international support, or rushing into military adventures without thinking through the consequences." Obama or Rand Paul?

In case you're curious, the answer is Obama. The more interesting question: Who exactly finds this collection of boilerplate foreign-policy truisms offensive? Bush himself could have delivered those lines in 2003 while attempting to argue that the Iraq War would avoid those traps. Is Rubin for overreaching, spreading ourselves too thin, and rushing into military adventures without thinking through the consequences? (Well, yes; she is. But I didn't realize she was aware of it.)

Advertisement

NEXT: Labor Day Confidential: The Misguided Logic Behind Minimum-Wage Hikes

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. So is that photo supposed to be a photomorph of Rand and Obama?

    1. Now that you’ve made the joke, I’m realizing it’s not.

    2. Her IMDB profile pic is more flattering.

      (Yeah, I know it’s a different Jennifer Rubin. That’s just my idea of a zinger.)

      1. She was great in Screamers.

        1. Never saw Screamers, but I have to mention every time Jennifer Rubin’s name comes up that she was beautiful … and bad! in A Nightmare on Elm Street 3.

          1. Holy shit, that’s the worst line delivery in any movie I’ve ever seen.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqYUpXjpx5Q – Except for Annie McDowell in Four Weddings and a Funeral.

            Incidentally, the buttons on reasonable that let you imbed links, bold things, italicize, etc. are missing right now. Does anyone know why that could be?

            1. Never mind. They’re working now. It’s weird they just weren’t there for one comment.

      2. She’d look better without the caterpillars on her face.

        1. What does that mean? Her eyebrows are too thick?

          People say the same about Phil Collins’ daugher, but as long as there’s a nice space between them (no uni-brow) I don’t think it’s a big deal.

          1. Yeah, some girls look nice with thicker eyebrows.

            1. And some girls look better without dicks.

              She looks like one of those girls.

              1. To be fair, I’d say all girls look better without dicks, but that’s just me.

              2. And some girls look better without dicks.

                Dude. It’s eyebrows. She’s not a fucking butterface or a sasquatch.

            2. Brooke Shields?

        2. She’d look better if she had remained a man, as God intended.

          1. ^ This was kinda my point. My derp made it less intelligible.

            1. You guys know you’re assholes, right? Just so we’re clear on that.

              1. Comparing Rand Paul to Pres. Obama based on both individual’s “failure” to push the perpetual warfare state is totally not asshole-ish, though. Right?

  2. Tbh, I think Reason gives shit like this more credibility than it deserves by responding to it.

    1. Yes, I’m sure you do prefer conservatives criticizing libertarians not be focused on here…

      1. FFS, dude, give it rest already.

        The libertarian purity thread is still down there if you haven’t got it all out of your system yet. Don’t pollute another one with your moral masturbation.

        1. Like I started that one. I’m not going to listen to PM lecture me about how my paranoid delusions about right leaning posters here and let his ‘hey, whey do we have to focus on this right wing critic of libertarians!’ pass.

          1. The beautiful irony is that you engage in the same “Hey look! The people in my movement I disagree with are totally like the people in the Enemy movement! Ha! Gotcha suckers!” shit that Rubin is engaging in here that Reason is calling her on.

            1. Your history is wrong.

              I never criticized anyone’s libertarianism here until people started to criticize mine. Ironically, they did so when I posted criticisms of social conservatives advocating NAP violations. Only then did I start to say to people like PM ‘what’s up with that?’ And then I started to notice that most of the same people that were so upset about me posting criticisms of Team Red were, interestingly, often also the people who tended to split with Reason writers on positions like immigration, abortion, gay rights…

              As for your specific point, I’m curious, what do you think of conservatives who thinks Chris Christie is not really a conservative? I guess they are engaged in the ‘hey, look, this guy is really more like our enemies’ thinking, but at some point it becomes odd for a conservative to not look at Christie and say ‘hey, wait a minute, for a conservative he…..an awful lot.’

              1. This point you’re making? It’s bullshit.

                The first post of yours I can even remember was criticising one of us for dogging on the left instead of the right.

                This article isn’t even about left versus right. It’s about left versus libertarian. Just because he belongs to the republican party doesn’t make him an (R).

                Much the same way denying your past doesn’t make you any less of a mendacious prick.

              2. Typical BLUE TULPA test:

                “If a gay man walks into a bar with a chicken is it ok to rape small children?

                If you say yes you are not a true libertarain!!!”

                Yeah sure whatever Bo.

              3. Chris Christie’s about as conservative as Gus Hall, except Gus Hall was somewhat humane.

          2. …and let his ‘hey, whey do we have to focus on this right wing critic of libertarians!’ pass.

            Oftentimes Bo will invent an argument that he can have with himself if one isn’t readily available in the comment to which he is replying.

            In this manner, my saying that giving air to a ridiculous comparison of Barack Obama and a socon, pro-life Republican senator affords the criticism more credibility than it deserves becomes: ‘hey, whey do we have to focus on this right wing critic of libertarians!’

            But then having your words completely mischaracterized is relatively unsurprising coming from a guy who literally can’t comprehend the actual words that he’s written himself mere months ago.

            1. The thing about arguing with himself is way more correct than you think.

              I’m quite certain that when Bo is having an argument with certain people, like Square for instance, he’s really just going back and forth between two accounts in an effort to make his point.

              When you can’t win an argument with others, you just talk back and forth like Gollum and then call yourself the winner.

            2. Neocons are left wing, being trotskyites and all. So she is a left wing critic of libertarians.

      2. Lol. Get on those tippy toes and reach Bo.

        Just FYI, Rand Paul is a Republican who supports a federal ban on abortion. It’s odd that you’re so defensive about criticism of a Repulican socon who opposes abortion, doncha think? Makes you wonder, doesn’t it…

        1. To be more specific, he supports a Constitutional amendment banning abortion. That’s a little different than the fed just banning it. He later backpedaled and said in some medically necessary cases, abortion would be permitted.

          Bo’s still curiously odd, even so.

    2. Rubin writes for a paper of record and is all over conservative talk radio. She needs to be rebutted.

      1. And whoever keeps hitting her with that ugly stick really needs to be stopped.

        1. Oh, I’d say she’s slightly above average looking for a woman in her 50s.

      2. Or doggy-styled. Repeatedly.

        1. Not by me. Maybe a Mexican donkey.

  3. How do mongoloids like Rubin actually think they just penned a gotcha? What fucking dream world do they inhabit?

    1. The one where they still get paid.

    2. She’s writing for her audience. 80% of Rubin’s readers will nod their head and agree that she’s proven Paul is left of Obama.

      1. Then they’ll move on to their other daily activities, such as drooling, shitting wherever they’re standing, and forgetting to breathe.

      2. Paul is left of Obama. And right of Rubio and Perry. At least on a lot of issues that are important to those of us who sit outside of the left-right continuum.

  4. Yes, half the wingnut world claims Obama “dithers” and won’t take forceful action via military hawkishness and the other half claims he is constantly “rushing into military adventures without thinking through the consequences.

    Typical idiocy. He is neither a hawk or a dove.

    1. Even someone between a hawk and dove is going to be someone contrary to a consistent non-interventionism, right?

      1. Sure. I have never claimed that Obama is a libertarian. He is just moreso than his GOP predecessor and rivals.

        McCain/Bush foreign policy was total disaster. Obama manages to stay away from Iraq style disasters while still meddling too much in the Middle East.

        Unlike most of the Peanut Gallery here I see more than binary “non-intervention vs disasters”. As you point out there is a middle ground.

        1. I think he’s more libertarian than Bush and McCain in foreign policy (hard to not meet that bar), but he also more than makes up for that in terms of domestic policy.

          1. You would lose that argument.

            NCLB
            McCain/Feingold
            the PARTRIOT Act
            Medicare Part D
            TARP
            American Dream Down Payment Act
            NSA/TSA
            Fed spending $1.9 to $3.5 trillion

            All dwarf Obamacare in scope and size.

            1. The ACA builds on the foundation laid by Bush. It is the next logical step, and would have been implemented in some form by Romney, had he won the election in 2008. Obama and Bush are brothers from a different mother.

              1. No offense, but you should just let PB and Bo argue with each other in their own little sandbox.

                1. Oh, right.

                  *looks around and sheepishly retreats to the southeast corner of the room*

            2. You’re kidding? First of all, spending alone under Obama has been higher than that under Bush. But all of those other programs you mention (most of which Obama has continued btw) could not match taking over 1/6 of the US economy like the ACA did.

              1. The ACA did not “take over” 1/6th of the economy, you economic moron. The privately owned medical industry has increased in size since 2010.

                I guess since utilities are regulated that the government has “taken over” the electrical transmission industry too?

                And since communications are regulated that the government has taken over Verizon and AT&T among others?

                And the auto industry has been taken over since CAFE standards are in place?

                And the legal system is socialist since laws are created by legislatures?

                1. Utilities and communications, the closer analogies you have there, are, what, free markets? That’s crazy.

            3. Obama voted for and implemented TARP and signed the reauthorization of the Patriot Act.

              1. But did he sign the PARTRIOT Act?

                1. No, but he extended it. And he lobbied for MORE liberty-restrictions. So, in effect, it’s his PATRIOT Act now.

            4. As awful as all of those are, they don’t dwarf obumblecare.

              Saying that a guy who has zero respect for private property rights is more libertarian than some other dude is like saying moon rocks are more like chicken than earth rocks. It is nonsense.

              1. has zero respect for private property rights

                Have to call bullshit on that one. Sounds like you have been listening to redneck AM radio again.

                It was Obama that reversed TARP (via SCAP) and made the banks repurchase their federally-owned preferred stock.

                (to be accurate it was Geithner)

            5. “Fed spending $1.9 to $3.5 trillion”

              I just can’t let this pass. From the White House itself (Table 1.1), here are the federal outlays in millions of dollars starting in 2008-2019 estimate. Notice the CONSTANT INCREASE.

              2,982,544
              3,517,677
              3,457,079
              3,603,059
              3,537,127
              3,454,605
              3,650,526
              3,900,989
              4,099,078
              4,268,606
              4,443,145
              4,728,791

              1. These numbers are due to Bush, of course. How can you still be blaming Pres. Obama for Bush’s failings?

                1. Because he’s a turd.

              2. 3,517,677 in 2009.

                3,650,526 today. A tiny increase for Obama thus far.

                Fed spending soared under Bush 43.

                1. Fed spending soared under Bush 43 and the 110th US Congress.

                  An important, though frequently overlooked, detail.

                2. So your argument is that Obama has managed to consistently give us federal spending matching Bush’s biggest spending binge year?

                  1. So your argument is that Obama has managed to consistently give us federal spending matching Bush’s biggest spending binge year?

                    What is important is the rate of increase in government (since it never contracts).

                    For example, although Clinton signed the largest spending cuts in modern history (with zero GOP votes) government still grew during both of his terms.

                    Must of it is automatic through entitlements. But when you create as many new programs as Bush did you can get a 40% growth rate beyond entitlements.

                    Bush grew entitlements (Medicare Part D), defense, Homeland Security, TSA, NSA, domestic spending, Aids in Africa (since cancelled by Obama), war spending, and every facet of government.

                    1. So, Obama is better than Bush because he’s continued to spend at the highest levels ever seen in U.S. history?

                      Or, is Obama better than Bush because he’s set the government up to increase spending even MORE in the upcoming ten years than has ever been seen in U.S. history?

                      Or, is Obama better than Bush because Hurrrrrrr! Hurr Hurrrr! Huuuurrrrr!

                    2. For example, although Clinton signed the largest spending cuts in modern history (with zero GOP votes) government still grew during both of his terms.

                      Which are you referring to? The Republican-led congress forced the spending changes (I hesitate to call them “cuts”) that Clinton signed. When his party was in charge in both branches, he did little to “cut” anything.

                3. 3,517,677 in 2009.

                  Obama was in office for 2009 dipshit.

                  1. Not only was he in office, but he voted for TARP and pushed Porkulus, both of which were supposed to be one time stimumlative increases, which instead became part of the baseline, and somehow Bush’s fault.

                    1. It is amusing how you guys have seem to lost your minds and believe that the shrieking imbecile could ever argue in good faith. You are attempting to use logic with a person either so stupid or so dishonest that he portrayed 8% as a majority.

        2. Yep, none of them have turned into disasters. Lybia didn’t. Syria *certainly* worked out well for us.

          It *is* entirely possible to both ‘rush into military adventures without thinking through the consequences’ *while* dithering and ‘not taking forceful (and effective) action’.

          1. If we don’t spend trillions or get thousands of troops killed it does not qualify as a disaster.

            Vietnam was a disaster. Iraq is a disaster.

            Syria is part of an ongoing sectarian war dating back hundreds of years.

            1. OK

              1. When did we get out of Iraq? Several YEARS after Obama took office. Its as much his war as it is Bush’s.

              2. Our intervention in Syria, where we backed the jihadis against Assad certainly hasn’t turned into a disaster that is *already* getting thousands of people killed. Or does it not count because they’re BSP?

              I mean, we took a side, lent military support to that side, killed people for that side – we own the outcome.

              1. Syria is part of an ongoing sectarian war dating back hundreds of years.

                If you throw rocks at a hornet’s nest, whose fault is it when you get stung?

                1. Epi.

                2. Rocks? We stuck our collective dick in that fucking thing.

              2. Agammamon|8.31.14 @ 4:49PM|#
                “OK
                1. When did we get out of Iraq? Several YEARS after Obama took office. Its as much his war as it is Bush’s.”

                Exactly.
                Turd presumes HE can blame it on someone other than Obo and therefore HE can claim it is not Obo’s problem.
                Why anyone here treats turd with civility is a mystery to me.
                That ‘thing’ is a turd, and deserves to be treated as the stinky thing that gets flushed.

        3. I suppose you might have something of a point.

          If you look at the left vs right scale in terms of numbers, it’s something like this:

          -1000

          1. Huh. My message got cropped. Well, the crux of it went like this:

            SHUT THE FUCK UP

            1. /pencils in RPM for an A in Progressive Debate Theory

              1. As long as I make a passing grade in this class, I can finally get my degree in Progressive Political Science!

                Then, I think I’ll get a job as a preacher for Obama.

    2. How many more bodies would Obama need to rack up before you might conclude maybe he is a hawk?

      1. I think “mawk” is more accurate.

    3. He is neither a hawk or a dove.

      Most of the time, Obama is just trolling us.

    4. Yes, half the wingnut world claims Obama “dithers” and won’t take forceful action via military hawkishness and the other half claims he is constantly “rushing into military adventures without thinking through the consequences.”

      He does both, actually.

      Typical idiocy. He is neither a hawk or a dove.

      So what is he? A cunning pragmatist?

    5. He is neither a hawk or a dove.

      Agreed. The closest bird analogy would be a chicken with its head cut off.

      1. Oh, you’re bad. You’re real bad.

    6. How is that Afghanistan surge working out ? Let’s see, 70% of all casualties under Obama, total failure, Taliban set to take power again. Why do you shits always pretend it never occurred ?

    7. Some want to kill all the Jews some want to kill no Jews.

      Obama is a moderate he only wants to kill half the Jews.

    8. Or an albatross.

  5. Sometimes it is hard to tell [Barack] Obama and [Rand] Paul apart.

    I have that problem all the time, what with their actual deeds being so similar.

    1. Rand Paul sports the jaunty “evil twin goatee”.

    2. “You people all look the same to me.”

  6. Most of the time, Obama is just trolling us.

    This requires me to presume a level of intelligence I just cannot find credible. I think he’s exactly what he appears to be; an incompetent buffoon.

    1. I think its silly to talk about Obama’s incompetence. He was never meant to ‘be competent,’ he was meant to be handled and presented as polarizing in a way that would provide more political victories than not.

      1. Presumably the people who voted for him expected him to be competent.

        1. The same way they expected Bush to be competent?

          1. Who expected Bush to be competent?

            1. Though his paintings are better than his presidency.

        2. Not really. They voted for him to prove to their friends that they aren’t racist.

    2. I would be fascinated to hear him talking during a private policy meeting with his kiss-ass staff. I wonder how fucking retarded he sounds. Like, Corky from Life Goes On level, or even worse?

      1. I’m thinking like this guy:

        http://media.onsugar.com/files…..88/tpb.jpg

        1. DON’T TALK SHIT ABOUT BUBBLES

          1. Bob Saget!

          2. Bubbles is awesome. More class than Obama and his entire administration combined. More intelligent, too.

      2. Yep, I would pay good money to hear him off script.

      3. The amusing thing will be, in textbooks of the future, he will be portrayed as having Solomonic or Einstein-level wisdom. Only those of us who were actually cognizant during his tenure will know otherwise — and that knowledge will die with us.

        1. Part of the reason Obama wants Warren to be the nominee is that he knows Hillary is likely to do everything she can to shit on his “legacy” out of sheer spite.

          1. The Squaw is not running. Where do you get your bullshit? AM radio?

            1. Yet. If you believe either woman is “not running”, I’ve got a bridge to sell…

              1. I wonder if Hilary will give Warren the VP nod after she wins.

                Clinton took in Gore who got second.

                I wonder if Hilary will pass the olive branch like her husband or pull a fuck you like Obama did.

                1. No Gore did not come in second. Gore came in third in 1988. In 1992, Fra Jerry was second.

        2. Actually, I think future textbooks will be rather harsh on Obama. A great deal of his support at this point is simply Team hackery and unwillingness of supporters to admit they were wrong about him. Once he’s out of office and the tell-all memoirs get published, his reputation will drop.

          1. White guilt is a powerful force in academia.

          2. A great deal of his support at this point is simply Team hackery and unwillingness of supporters to admit they were wrong about him.

            Truman was wildly unpopular and only barely won reelection in ’48 and got us into the quagmire of Korea, yet he is portrayed very well.

            Shit, Johnson, the man who brought us Vietnam is remembered rather fondly.

            Carter, a bumbling buffoon much like Obama who has spent his entire ex-presidency being a shill for autocrats and Communists gets passed off as “America’s best ex-president.”

            Wilson was a vile racist who imprisoned dissenters and sucked us into a war in which more men died than either Korea or Vietnam (and was as much for nothing as either of those wars) and he’s beloved FFS.

      4. I always just hear his voice as “Hurrrrrrrrrrrr! Huuurrrrrr! Hurrr hurrrr! Hurrrrrrr!”

        It’s awful.

  7. For a laugh: Islamic militiamen are guarding/playing in the US embassy in Tripoli.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html
    Post your videos with care. We’re going to need a scapegoat.
    Baaa-baaaa.

    1. On the Islamist terrorist scale of facial hair they only score a 2.5. Not much to worry about.

    2. But remember – Obama has managed to stay away from ‘Iraq-style disasters’.

    3. What would you do in Libya if the only things available were a swimming pool, air conditioned sleeping quarters and mess halls, and a well-stocked pantry? I’d defend it to the death.

  8. Sometimes it is hard to tell [Barack] Obama and [Rand] Paul apart.

    That it was Pres. Obama that has said something sensible does not make the statement nonsense.

    “History teaches us of the dangers of overreaching, and spreading ourselves too thin, and trying to go it alone without international support, or rushing into military adventures without thinking through the consequences.”

    So…Rubin thinks that overreaching, spreading ourselves too thin, “trying to go it alone”, and rushing into military adventures without thinking through the consequences are good things? It is the quote she put up, I infer, as “stupid stuff Obama and Paul say”, so I can only conclude she thinks rushing in where angels fear to tread is good policy.

    Is she here admitting that she is incapable of learning from even recent history?

    1. Talk is cheap. Actions are what you’re judged by.

    2. Admittedly, it’s can be really hard to tell the difference between substance and insincere focus group tested platitudes, especially when your whole job is picking sides and ignoring facts.

  9. I find that kind of boilerplate offensive, not because it advises caution but because it can be used to substitute mindless caution for mindless aggressiveness.

    There is no safe path in foreign policy. You need an intelligent weighing of each situation to find the least-dangerous path, and it frustrates me — and endangers all of us — that our political system is so incapable of the necessary power of reasoning.

    1. You need an intelligent weighing of each situation to find the least-dangerous path

      That would be great if we could trust the president and his foreign policy advisors to do what they think is best for the country in each situation. Without that, you get exactly what Obama’s foreign policy has been — a focus group and poll driven incoherent mess.

      The point of a relatively rigid and prescriptive foreign policy “rule of thumb” is to constrain those in power from doing things destructive to the country just to help themselves. Sure, there will be some cases where strict noninterventionism isn’t the best thing to do for the country, but there are far more cases where it is.

  10. Spoken like someone who will never, ever be even remotely close to actual combat. Like most armchair warriors.

  11. There is no sugar-coating it; Jennifer Rubin has difficulties with implementing a successful zinger.

    1. Let me be clear: Jennifer Rubin is dumber than shit.

  12. OT more stuff from the dark website

    http://thinkprogress.org/justi…..s-citizen/

    Mayor Forces Man To Leave Public Meeting Because He Won’t Stand During Prayer

    1. They don’t even do that to people in church.

    2. Stricter than church!

    3. Okay, so where is Bo to tell us how evil republican coservatives are?

      This is actually a pretty good example.

  13. “History teaches us of the dangers of overreaching, and spreading ourselves too thin, and trying to go it alone without international support, or rushing into military adventures without thinking through the consequences.”

    So, does she mean–even Obama–is smarter than the neocons?!

    That’s rich.

    1. He talks smarter, occasionally.

      1. Obama doesn’t even think of it in those terms.

        I’d much rather have an idiot capitalist with an instinctive aversion to war in the office than a well-educated, socialistic war-hawk, that’s for sure.

        I’ll say that’s probably the very best thing anyone can say about Obama–he’s not as enthusiastic of a war-hawk as Bush was.

        …but that isn’t saying much.

        What we need is a pragmatist–and he’s by no means one of those. Obama can’t even figure out what’s in his own best interests–much less the country’s.

        …but if, in his stupidity, he’s a little more instinctively adverse to jumping in with both feet and wants to look before he leaps?

        I guess that’s better than some. Hillary would have committed ground troops already.

        Run, Rand, Run.

        1. but if, in his stupidity, he’s a little more instinctively adverse to jumping in with both feet and wants to look before he leaps?

          If he is stupid then it will not help.

        2. I’ll say that’s probably the very best thing anyone can say about Obama–he’s not as enthusiastic of a war-hawk as Bush was.

          If he’d had his way, he would have gotten us involved in the same number of wars as Bush did.

        3. I’ll say that’s probably the very best thing anyone can say about Obama–he’s not as enthusiastic of a war-hawk as Bush was.

          I would completely disagree here – he’s as much of a war hawk. The only differences are a) he doesn’t see acting bloodthirsty as a positive thing for his image, so he downplays, and b) he has drones, so he can play wargames pretty much wherever and whenever without having to worry too much about public opinion. Bush era warring really did require boots on the ground so Bush had to drum up at least some public support – Obama just has to worry about not facing too much opposition.

          1. The indications I’m seeing suggest that Obama is being dragged into the ISIS thing reluctantly.

            That’s different from a president who makes shit up in order to justify a war that no one realized they wanted.

            Like I said, my opinion of Obama has him somewhere far below prostitutes and crack dealers, but on this one thing?

            He’s a little bit better than Hillary or Bush.

            1. The indications I’m seeing suggest that Obama is being dragged into the ISIS thing reluctantly.

              Except that a large portion of the chaos in the Middle East is the direct result of Barack Obama deciding it was a brilliant idea to help overthrow Qaddafi. Once Libya was plunged into anarchy, a large amount of the Islamist expansion into Mali and other African countries picked up. To some degree our involvement in Libya is directly responsible for the empowerment of Boko Haram. Weapons we supplied Libyan rebels went to Boko Haram and the general destabilizing effect our Libyan intervention had on North Africa created the environment in which they increased in strength.

              Similarly, our supplying weapons to anti-Assad militants in Syria directly aided several radical splinter groups including ISIS. Obama very nearly ordered the overthrow of Assad and was only bailed out by Vladimir Putin. If Obama had blunderfucked us into Syria, ISIS would be even more of a threat to that region than they currently are.

              It seems to me that most of these problems are the direct result of Obama destabilizing various countries and then leaving without even trying to clean up the mess.

              1. I am guessing that Ken did not read the stupidity link I provided. 🙂

                The Five Basic Laws of Human Stupidity

                Always and inevitably, everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.

                The probability that a certain person is stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.

                The Golden Law of Human Stupidity: A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain, and even possibly incurring losses.

                Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places and under any circumstances to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.

                A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person. Corollary: A stupid person is more dangerous than a bandit.

                1. Did you forget “Stupid is as stupid does?”

                  Damn, that was the stupidest movie I ever saw, that’s for certain.

                2. I would add something like: Personal beliefs can make smart people stupid.

              2. “Except that a large portion of the chaos in the Middle East is the direct result of Barack Obama deciding it was a brilliant idea to help overthrow Qaddafi.”

                What is going on in Syria and Iraq is not a result of what Obama did in Libya.

                #1 The Libyan people (along with the Qataris on the ground and the Europeans in the air) were probably going to win that battle anyway.

                #2 The Arab Spring came to those places independently. The peoples of Tunisia and Egypt didn’t check to see what Obama was doing in Libya before their uprisings either.

                #3 Why would you point to some independent movement in Libya, on another continent, when the destabilization of Iraq is much more proximate? …both in terms of location and causation.

                1. Seriously, do you not see Bush destabilizing Iraq as having anything at all to do with…the current instability in Iraq?

                  That would be silly, wouldn’t it.

                  Like I said, Barack Obama is a jackhole moron, and his stupidity is practically criminal.

                  …but he isn’t to blame for everything bad that happens.

                  I mean, we all chuckle every time some progressive idiot comes here and blames Bush for something that’s obviously Obama’s stupid fault, but that stops being funny the moment we ourselves start pretending that nothing Bush did was Bush’s fault, right?

                  1. that stops being funny the moment we ourselves start pretending that nothing Bush did was Bush’s fault, right?

                    Who is saying that nothing Bush did was Bush’s fault here, Ken?

                    By your logic, nothing Obama does can be blamed on him because Bush screwed things up first. That’s nonsensical. There’s plenty of blame to go around. When Obama does something foolish in view of the current state of the ME/NA (largely Bush’s fault) the negative consequences are Obama’s fault.

                    In the case of Libya, I don’t see how you can blame Bush for any of it. He got Gaddafi to give up his WMDs, the sum of his administration’s activity in Libya.

                    1. “In the case of Libya, I don’t see how you can blame Bush for any of it.”

                      I don’t think you’re following the conversation.

                      Or maybe you just spin a wheel and assign random opinions to various commenters?

                      I blame Bush for destabilizing Iraq.

                      Why wouldn’t I blame Bush for destabilizing Iraq?

                      Blaming Bush for Libya? Why would I blame Bush for Libya?

                      Irish wrote the following:

                      “Except that a large portion of the chaos in the Middle East is the direct result of Barack Obama deciding it was a brilliant idea to help overthrow Qaddafi.”

                      That’s what I was responding to. You can tell because I quoted it and responded to it. I’m the guy saying that what’s happening in Syria and Iraq right now with ISIS and co. is not a results of Libya.

                      Seriously, what Bush did in destabilizing Iraq–might have had something to do with the present instability in Iraq. …more so than what Obama did in Libya has to do with the present instability in Iraq.

                      Are you following this? Read it again, carefully. Because nowhere did I ever blame Bush for Libya.

                      That being said, George W. Bush was an idiot, jackass, fuckface, lying sack of shit, socialist, TARP boy, Constitution hating, asswipe, and if there’s anybody out there that still supports George W. Bush for libertarian reasons, they’re even dumber than he is.

                    2. The aid rendered to the overthrow of Qaddafi definitely gave hope to Syrians who wished to be free of their dictator. As did the talk of support after they began their insurgency.

                      But all of the above (as well as Egypt and all of the Arab Spring) had its foundation laid by the neocons in Iraq. That was kinda the point of the invasion of Iraq – to set up a democracy in the middle east and get all the people to rise up and overthrow their dictators for democracies.

                      So, plenty of blame to go around. ISIL is the “Oh crap, we didn’t think of that” consequence of the neocon policy as implemented by Obama.

                    3. There isn’t anybody anywhere in the Arab or Muslim worlds that looked at Iraq after what Bush did to it and thought to themselves, “Yeah, we want to be just like that”.

                      No one wants to emulate anything in Iraq.

                      Why would they?

                      The Arab Spring was about a number of things–none of them were about emulating Iraq or what Bush made in Iraq.

              3. “blunderfucked”

                I’m going to steal that.

  14. I have trouble following Rubin’s argument. I think she is trying to associate Rand with Obumbles to try and stem the flow of support away from establishment R’s to Paul. If that is what this is, she rushed into it without thinking it through.

    1. …she rushed into it without thinking it through.

      Establishing her neocon bonifieds, apparently.

  15. At times, Paul sounds like the thought bubble over Obama’s head. Indeed, they share a common determination to avoid reality. In their world, the Iraq war was never won.

    OTOH, in *Rubin’s* world, ….

    1. Mission “accomplished”

  16. On Jennifer Rubin:

    ” Columbia Journalism Review writer Ali Gharib said that “the Post seems to have picked someone who, while capable of some political introspection on the right, characterizes opponents by derision; by delegitimizing them rather than engaging them on the substance of their policy preferences.”[6]”

    Ali, that’s unfair.

    She’s *a woman*

    (hides)

    1. Basically the female, right wing version of Episiarch. Assuming Episiarch isn’t female himself.

      1. Only on Tuesdays.

        1. Those are good Tuesdays.

  17. Ted Cruz Drops this Bomb

    “‘America has always been reluctant to use military force, but we have never shied away from defending the United States of America,’ Cruz said. ‘ISIS says they want to go back and reject modernity, well I think we should help them. We ought to bomb them back to the stone age.'”

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/po…..stone-age/

    1. We certainly should be destroying US military equipment that they seized.

      As for actually going to full-blown war over this… TBH there’s a stronger case for war against them than there was in 2003 against Saddam. They are threatening several of our friends in the region. We certainly shouldn’t let the fact that we just got through with a war there affect our thiking — either it makes sense or it doesn’t.

      1. We certainly should be destroying US military equipment that they seized.

        Well there is seized then there is “hey look at all the crap the US gave us you ISIS guys want some” among Syrian rebels then there is “Hey we are Sunni you are Sunni how about you take this gear the US gave us” in Iraq and then there is “Hey we get a bunch of money and arms from the US cuz we have a shit pot of oil or whatever how about we shift funds and donate to ISIS” in Saudi Arabia and every other Sunni oil rich county in the gulf.

        Then there is is just straight up CIA ops handing it over to them because they are a bloated idiotic bureaucracy being directed by red line Obama.

    2. “‘America has always been reluctant to use military force…”

      Wha? The history of the U.S. is a history of one goddam war after another. Have we ever had a 10 year span without war?

      1. Wha? The history of the U.S. is a history of one goddam war after another. Have we ever had a 10 year span without war?

        In fairness, we were relatively reluctant to use force for about the first century and a half. We had some wars, but not that many.

        Things kind of went downhill after WWI and really got crazy once we became the only Western superpower post WWII. It’s only post-WWII that we’ve become the hyper-interventionist monstrosity we know today.

        1. “In fairness, we were relatively reluctant to use force for about the first century and a half. We had some wars, but not that many.”

          This is only true if you exclude wars against Native American groups. The government was more reluctant to engage in major overseas conflicts in those days, but were pretty eager to engage in continuous conquest for over 100 years to the west.

      2. 1918-1941, 1973-1991

        1. 1918-1941, 1973-1991

          What about Grenada or the various invasions by American special forces during the 1980s for Drug War purposes?

          1. Grenada wasn’t really a war, any more than Panama was.

            1. Any more than Vietnam was?

              1. Vietnam lasted more than a week.

            2. Just a police action like Korea.

        2. This is a quibble, but the US was part of the 1918-1920 Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War.

        3. “1973 – 1991”

          I wouldn’t be too sure of that.

          1. We had to defend our right to Central American bananas.

      3. According to this Wikipedia list US involvement, the only period of more than 10 years was 1923-1940. America! Fuck yeah!

        1. And looked what happened when we quit – the Great Depression!

          Keynes was right – you *do* make yourself richer by spending money to make shit and then blowing it up.

  18. Libertarians seem to be pretty uniformly and strongly non-interventionist, so why the butthurt when someone points it out?

    1. She’s not pointing out that Paul is noninterventionist. She’s saying he’s the same as Obama.

  19. Is there anybody on the left who can tell the difference between what somebody does and what somebody says?

    It’s almost as if they’re willfully ignorant. Or actually ignorant.

    1. Doesn’t Rubin identify as conservative? Isn’t that why she’s trying to conflate Paul and Obama?

  20. Progressive students at Columbia create a ‘disorientation guide’ to help students more effectively behave like leftist morons.

    It literally has a section called A Brief (Colonialist) History which ends with the progs complaining about ‘Columbia announcing its plans to expand into West Harlem.’

    Apparently an institution of higher learning opening up schools in a black neighborhood is colonialism now.

    1. Were they talking about Columbia ED’ing a bunch of poor people’s houses? They’d get some of my respect if so.

      1. Apparently they were.

        I withdraw my complaint on that section of the manifesto. The rest of it is still awful.

        1. I’m not going to read it, but… do they object to the eminent domain aspect, or do they object to it because racism?

    2. This shit isn’t even progressive = its mostly “socialists” (see their credits page)

      i do not have the stomach for the whole thing, but i was curious about how the commu-tards define ‘safe’ these days, so…

      “The university doesn’t always provide or allow space, voice, access or respect for marginal students (students of color, working students, disabled students, queer students, trans* students, etc), so if you give any shits about the liberation of oppressed peoples, here are a few ways you can be your own portable safe space…”

      re: the bolded section –

      try and determine what any of these words actually *mean* in relation to what the university ‘does or doesn’t’ PROVIDE

      Does the ‘university’ already have speech codes? Does the university already provide handicapped access? Equal opportunity programs? and so on? Check-a-palooza.

      What is *lacking*?

      The short of it is, “Enforcement of our arbitrary desires“.

      “Safe” means, “disagree with us, and you go the the Student Gulag” basically.

      1. “marginal students”

        Really? I fall into one of those pigeonholes but too bad for them I don’t like to be patronized so they can stuff it.

      2. The university doesn’t always provide or allow space, voice, access or respect for marginal students (students of color, working students, disabled students, queer students, trans* students, etc), so if you give any shits about the liberation of oppressed peoples….

        Ummm…I got it! “So if you give any shits about the liberation of oppressed peoples, you could always not pursue that shiny Columbia University degree to add to your resume/CV”, right?

        1. And people wonder why college degrees have been declining in relative value.

      3. here are a few ways you can be your own portable safe space

        Fucking hell. How on earth do these people function without someone constantly whispering in their ear how wonderful they are?

        If this country ever does get legitimately invaded, these folks are going to melt like an ice cream sundae in Saudi Arabia–if they don’t collaborate with the invaders.

    1. I think the most surprising thing I learned is that Peter Thiel founded libertarianism circa 2009.

      1. When we all know that the Koch Brothers founded it in 1974.

        1. Only to co-opt it for the GOP 40 years later…

    2. What a weak effort, but I guess it will sustain the faithful for a news cycle or two.

    3. Rothbard is a member of the so-called Austrian School of economics, cofounded the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and is widely admired among libertarians. He continues:

      To his credit, Rothbard preaches a form of libertarianism which is internally consistent.

      I realize Richard Eskow suffers from a neurologically debilitating piron disease, but surely he has enough mental functioning left to realize that Rothbard has been dead for almost 2 decades.

      1. Don’t ask me why I bolded the last “is” but forgot to bold “continues”. I guess I got crazy with the “is”-es.

      2. I also like that internal consistency only matters to progressives when attacking libertarians. Many people who are moderate libertarians, like myself, have no problem with laws requiring people to feed their children. I think libertarianism in its hardest form breaks down when kids are involved because they are essentially dependent upon their parents. You therefore can’t argue that parents should be allowed to leave their kids to starve to death, since that’s essentially murder given how dependent they are.

        Progressives will say things like ‘well, if taken to its logical extremes, you guys would let kids starve’ but they’d stamp their feet and angrily cross their arms if I pointed out that taken to logical extremes progressivism is literally Communist. Internal consistency is irrelevant if you’re left-wing enough.

        1. You’re giving them too much credit. When it comes to starving children, Progressives are completely internally consistent. Your average Prog will screech for hours about how the planet is over-populated. And in service to their beliefs, developments in bio-engineered crops that have the potential to feed billions are outright despised by them.

          Progressivism is nothing more than a modern-day cult of Moloch, where the children of the Third World are sacrificed upon the altar of smug upper-middle class, left-wing moral pretension.

          1. altar of smug upper-middle class, left-wing moral pretension.

            I could not imagine being a libertarian and working in academics. Working right next to that altar, so to speak. I would probably snap and beat someone near to death with a copy of The Road to Serfdom in defense of my sanity.

            1. I could not imagine being a libertarian and working in academics. Working right next to that altar, so to speak. I would probably snap and beat someone near to death with a copy of The Road to Serfdom in defense of my sanity.

              Why do you think SugarFree’s work is so disturbing?

          2. Talk about strawmanning.

            No liberal opposes GMO food because they want kids to starve. I know it’s a great comfort to think your opponents are morally evil, but it certainly isn’t helpful in engaging or counteracting them to delude yourself in such a way.

    4. The shocked face over the Rothbard starving-child test is my favorite, like when we test libertarian theory with a hypothetical about slave contracts. Rothbard says that you don’t get to aggress against someone to force him to feed the starving, even in the case of his own children. Same principle as not pointing your gun at your neighbor to force him to feed starving people 3,000 miles away, which doesn’t strike me as particularly controversial unless you think it’s okay to go around pointing guns at people to force them to feed the starving. Rothbard being Rothbard enjoys poking idiots in the eye with the libertarian version of a zombie-apocalypse scenario where no one in the world has any food to feed a starving child other than the hard-hearted parents, who apparently enjoy watching their child die.

      The swooning sisters always act like deontological libertarians would allow you to stuff your closets full of starving children. Alas, this is traditionally a feature of command economies, so we’ll have to find another way to appeal to the socialists.

      1. unless you think it’s okay to go around pointing guns at people to force them to feed the starving.

        But that premise is the axis mundi, the very heart and soul, of modern Progressivism.

        1. Getting bleeding-heart fascists to admit to being bleeding-heart fascists is half the fun of being libertarian.

    5. The “they wanna eliminate SS and Medicare! part” is good, too:

      Except that Medicare isn’t failing. It provides healthcare at lower direct cost, lower administrative cost, and with lower cost inflation than equivalent private-sector insurance.

      One, that’s insane, as Medicare encourages overconsumption by subsidizing medical care to people who often do not need it as much as others who don’t have Medicare, and two, even Alternet scribblers might have noted that private insurance isn’t exactly a model of free markets these days.

      1. even Alternet scribblers might have noted that private insurance isn’t exactly a model of free markets these days.

        Wrong. Whenever progs want more government involvement, whatever they’re trying to control is claimed to be a pure free market. So if they want to control food production, then they’ll claim food is a pure free market despite the existence of things like farm subsidies. If they want to more heavily regulate gasoline, they’ll claim it’s a pure free market while ignoring the existence of 70 cent gas taxes in California, regulations on clean burning fuel, etc. If they want heavier regulation on banks, they claim banking is a pure free market, despite the fact that it’s probably the most heavily regulated industry in America.

        Everything is a free market when progressives want the government to expand its grasp, regardless of how heavily regulated it already is.

    6. Hmm

      1. Parents should be allowed to let their children starve to death.

      Can the neighbors and family not intervene? They can in Libertopia.

      2. We must deregulate companies like Uber, even when they cheat.

      They’re not cheating, they simply playing a different game than you are.

      3. We should eliminate Social Security and Medicare.

      Yes.

      4. Society doesn’t have the right to enforce basic justice in public places of business.

      a) Society doesn’t have a sense of ‘basic justice’ – *people* do.

      b) Your idea of basic justice is actually not that basic. Libertarians consider the right to free association to be basic. You’re ‘basic justice’ requires people to give a whole lot more.

      1. 5. Selflessness is vile.

        Nothing in you philosophy is selfless. You’re whole political philosophy revolves around forcing *other* people to provide goods and services, at the point of a gun.

        6. Democracy is unacceptable, especially since we began feeding poor people and allowing women to vote.

        His point is that democracy is not the end goal here, *freedom* is. If democracy is providing less freedom then we should look, dispassionately, at alternatives.

        You guys like to talk big about ‘utilitarianism’ and how if government can make things better then it should do it even if that’s not part of its traditional role – shoe’s on the other foot now.

        7. We can replace death with libertarianism.

        No libertarian is going to stop you from dying if that’s what you want.

        Its a better alternative than what you’re offering – you *will* stop me from living forever if it doesn’t fit into your agenda.

        1. 6. Democracy is unacceptable, especially since we began feeding poor people and allowing women to vote.

          This is especially interesting given that progressivism is completely undemocratic. In order for a progressive state to function, massive bureaucracies must be constructed to handle regulatory matters, wealth redistribution, etc. Tell me, who voted for the head of the EPA? Who voted for the average worker in the DEA? Who voted for Spy #12 in the CIA?

          No one. The more bureaucratic a country becomes the less say voters actually have because their votes become meaningless. No matter who you vote for, most law is now made by unelected bureaucrats whose names we don’t know and who we cannot vote out of office.

          But progs love ‘democracy.’ Yeah, okay.

          1. Interestingly, the two movements progressives seem to have a special hate for — fascism and conservatism — are extremely well-recieved in their countries of origin and have a much greater claim to popular legitimacy than progressivism does. In fact, much of progressivism is predicated on the idea of building up a civil bureaucracy which is in practice the actual decision-maker in government.

            Not that I’m particularly enamored of democracy, fascism, or conservatism, but the facts are what they are and the fact is that progressivism is about as democratic as the Bourbon Restoration movement.

            1. Socialism (aka progressivism) and fascism are essentially the same economic system, with different rhetoric.

              1. Eh, they are very similar but not equivalent. In terms of popularity, fascism was certainly more popular than communism ever got to be, outright winning elections and everything — partly because, while still incoherent, it essentially argued for externalizing its economic system’s costs for as long as possible through war and plunder (Nazi Germany’s income during WWII was ~25-35% made up of plundering Eastern Europe of its resources), which was rationalized by removing the international component of socialism. Economically, fascism was slightly better by virtue of being activist rather than theoretical/dogmatic as socialism was; when the socialist economics proved to be a huge turd in Italy and Germany, they largely moved towards socialism-lite/corporatism alongside the other “social democrat” parties.

                Certainly fascism was more popularly-rooted among the Italians and Germans than progressivism is for Americans (save perhaps for a brief period during the Depression).

                1. Eh, they are very similar but not equivalent. In terms of popularity, fascism was certainly more popular than communism ever got to be, outright winning elections and everything — partly because, while still incoherent, it essentially argued for externalizing its economic system’s costs for as long as possible through war and plunder (Nazi Germany’s income during WWII was ~25-35% made up of plundering Eastern Europe of its resources), which was rationalized by removing the international component of socialism.

                  ??? Communism had total control over Russia and China. Vastly more people lived under Communist control than under Fascist control, and Communism remained very popular among the intellectual set into the 80’s, about 40 years after Fascism’s demise.

                  You’d be hard pressed to find a Fascist supporter today, but Commies are still out there.

                  I think Communism has had vastly more longstanding popularity than Fascism did. Fascism had a short flowering in the 30’s and 40’s, but Communism was basically the political movement of the 20th century.

                  I think Communism was more popular than fascism.

                  1. Communism was longer-lasting in power than fascism and more popular among a certain cadre of the intelligentsia, but it wasn’t ever as successful as a mass movement nor did it ever organize itself simply as a crude mass movement as fascism did. Neither Russia nor China saw their communists thrust to power in legitimate elections, as the fascists in Italy and Germany did. Russia’s Bolsheviks effectively won power by military coup (control over more soldier soviets) and had to fight a civil war to gain control of the country outside St Petersberg. China’s commies took over after a drawn-out civil war with a dilapidated and failed Nationalist government.

                    While it can’t be denied that revolutionary communism/socialism/anarchism was a mass movement from the 19th century onwards and had more universal appeal outside Europe, its real power was in how it organized itself, particularly under vanguardist forms which allowed them to strategically use a large, politically-active minority to gain power in their countries and subsequently build up a bloody domestic apparatus to lock out popular opinion. Fascism never truly had to engage in such; the victims of fascism before WWII (including Kristalnacht) were ~5,000-10,000 and their power base was relatively secure for most of the time that they were in power. The same could not be said for the communist regimes.

                  2. Communism remained very popular among the intellectual set into the 80’s

                    It’s not really gone from the intellectual set today.

                2. Socialism doesn’t have to have an international component. Fascism doesn’t have to be about war and plunder. The two systems are not defined by the idiosyncracies of the 1930s-era USSR and Nazi Germany.

                  1. Socialism doesn’t have to have an international component

                    It does if you buy into the dichotomy between labor and capital as a constant which transcends cultural boundaries and which are inevitable (albeit likely to occur earlier in some societies than in others). Granted, most socialists tend to throw out the internationalism once it becomes inconvenient but the nationalist component is much stronger in fascism. (Speaking as a former socialist, here.)

                    Fascism doesn’t have to be about war and plunder.

                    True but it is pretty explicitly nationalistic and the upshot is that a cash-starved regime of that nature will likely go to war with its neighbors with the goal of capturing more resources when the failure of its economic system becomes apparent. An ideology which states that nations are always in competition also has a built in justification for war, since nations are already in a low-level state of zero-sum war over resources in all cases according to the ideology.

                    I think that more states than just Nazi Germany and the USSR would embody these differences; Italy’s Ethiopian and Adriatic expeditions were mostly failures but align pretty well with their ideology.

                    1. True but it is pretty explicitly nationalistic

                      Yes, but that’s a rhetorical difference.

                      he upshot is that a cash-starved regime of that nature will likely go to war with its neighbors with the goal of capturing more resources when the failure of its economic system becomes apparent.

                      Which socialist and communist countries also have a history of doing. The Soviets and Nazis were originally allies in dividing up E. Europe for heaven’s sake!

              2. Historically, American progressivism is a first cousin to fascism. Both came out of the same millieu that saw liberalism as a sclerotic failure, which would require Unspecified Strong Leadership to bring us Together as a Nation. The main difference was that fascism saw democracy as being a complete failure that had a proven record of not Representing the National Good, whereas in the US, progressivism thought that it was going to be the means by which we would institute a nationalist type of socialism, but that it just needed to be reformed to remove obstructionist influences.

                1. American progressivism is a first cousin to fascism.

                  True, and in its heyday it was (possibly) as successful as fascism was in its own. Today? Certainly not; as a generality the only people who protest in favor of progressivism as an ideology or get off their asses to support it are people who are paid to do so or young people. The people who control and benefit from the movement are upper-class and not particularly well liked by anyone, including most of their political allies. The fact that Van Jones is running anything larger than a janitorial closet is not representative of a popular groundswell for him (or people like him) to have power but of the infiltration of his type into government service.

                  Progressivism is to the US government what State Shinto was to Meiji Japan: a useful organizing scheme of thought separating the ruler-ship from the people, masquerading as something endogenous to the people.

      2. 1. Parents should be allowed to let their children starve to death.

        Can the neighbors and family not intervene? They can in Libertopia.

        I suspect that any use of the word homesteading with respect to infants would lead to a spate of exploding heads among the progressives.

    7. I almost stopped at #1 when they said “they allow children to starve to death”

      …while granted, Yes = I believe abortion should be legal up until they are old enough to join the military or can bring me the head of the giant Winter Wolf – it is clear that the author of the piece has no interest in intellectual honesty, but simply wanted to “lead where it bleeds” and start the conversation with the *assumption* that ‘libertarians are amoral wackos whose criticism of excess government interference isn’t even to be given the slightest degree of sincere examination’

      Also = given that the seem to think that “any kind of de-regulation” is tantamount to *letting your children starve* is reason enough to call the entire piece a steaming load of horseshit.

      1. is clear that the author of the piece has no interest in intellectual honesty

        Again, it’s Richard Eskow. He has the same zealousness and utter disregard of reality that an author of a Jack Chick* tract has. Just in service to a different god; his is called “State”.

        *He doesn’t write them all.

      2. I almost stopped at #1 when they said “they allow children to starve to death”

        Bastiat covered that shit over 150 years ago:

        Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

    8. Libertarian ideas exist in an economic (philosophical) disciplinary silo that ignores the last two decades of evidence in the fields of human biological development, cognitive and neurosciences.

      Psuedoscience says we’re wrong.

      1. The prog infiltration of the humanities has predictably resulted in the old Marxian chestnut about collectivism being “epiphenomenal” to be projected into neuroscience, where the progs can point to it and say, “It’s not faith, it’s science!”

        Closely related are Sam Harris and the so-called “New Atheists” who claim that altruism and collectivism are actually programmed into the DNA of humans, so anyone who doesn’t want to be a slave (or master) is a sociopath, or otherwise psychologically compromised.

        Meet the new boss, same as the old boss: rationalism.

        1. Hayek also uses the atavistic collectivist argument in a more reasonable way, in that we’re programmed to be tribalistic and hostile to outsiders for the sake of survival, accounting in part for the knee-jerk socialist attack on unelected corporations (outside the tribe and thus dangerous) and their favor for democratically elected officials (within the tribe).

          Given how insane people like Chomsky sound to anyone with a shred of economic intuition when they go off on the evils of the division of labor or how corporations are “unaccountable” relative to democratically elected states, Hayek’s hypothesis has a lot of explanatory power.

    9. OK, I am engaging them over there, not on the specifics of the “7 strange ideas,” but on the basis that it’s unfair to cherry-pick statements by a few people in a wide and varied movement and use them to attack the entire philosophy.

      So here’s my request to you all: can we come up with a similar list of “strange ideas” by “founding members and leading proponents” of socialism, progressivism, feminism, etc.?

      1. We can start and stop with everything published by Herbert Marcuse or anyone from the Frankfurt School.

      2. Here’s what I have so far:

        “I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” ?Robin Morgan

        “I consider the Chinese government’s policy among the most intelligent in the world” ?Molly Yard, about China’s compulsory abortions.

        “Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/ Communist government is the goal of feminism.” — Catharine A. MacKinnon

        “We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. And the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” ?Margaret Sanger, in a letter to eugenics leader Dr. Clarence Gamble

      3. “By destroying the peasant economy and driving the peasant from the country to the town, the famine creates a proletariat… Furthermore the famine can and should be a progressive factor not only economically. It will force the peasant to reflect on the bases of the capitalist system, demolish faith in the tsar and tsarism, and consequently in due course make the victory of the revolution easier… Psychologically all this talk about feeding the starving and so on essentially reflects the usual sugary sentimentality of our intelligentsia.” ?Vladimir Lenin

        “Socialism means equality of income or nothing… under socialism you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you like it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live you would have to live well.” ?George Bernard Shaw

        “To be a socialist is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole.” ?Joseph Goebbels

        1. “This means that the ways should not be blocked on which a subversive majority could develop, and if they are blocked by organized repression and indoctrination, their reopening may require apparently undemocratic means. They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc.” ?Herbert Marcuse

  21. Social Security is entirely self-funded through its own contributions.

    You can’t make this stuff up.

    1. That is so delusional I don’t even know where to begin.

      1. Huh? Until a couple of years ago it was literally true; contributions exceeded payouts.

        One of those reasons I look askance at people who say we should end SS to help with the budget deficit.

        1. Social Security is entirely self-funded through its own contributions.

          The word ‘is’ is very relevant in this context. It is not entirely self-funded because without serious increases in the social security tax the costs of social security are going to wildly overrun the payments into social security.

          From that radical bastion of right wing propaganda, Time Magazine.

          But it is now official: Social Security is a lousy investment for the average worker. People retiring today will be among the first generation of workers to pay more in Social Security taxes than they receive in benefits over the course of their lives, according to a new analysis by the Associated Press.

          Looking at numbers from an Urban Institute study, the AP found that a married couple retiring in 2011 after both spouses earned average income during their lives paid total Social Security taxes of $598,000. They can expect to collect $556,000 in benefits, if the man lives to 82 and the woman lives to 85. This is another landmark turning point sure to enliven the debate over how to fix Social Security, which without changes will be insolvent by 2033.

          Seems like saying it is paying for itself is a bit inaccurate.

          1. If it were a 401k it would be considered self-funding. During the years of surplus it bought T-bills and is now cashing them in.

            Of course it’s all a fiction since SS is part of the govt it was lending money to, but no need to go there.

            1. Fine, it’s self-funding in the same way General Motors’ pension plans were self-funding. I’m sure the people of Detroit were wonderfully pleased at the self-funding pension plans of the Big Three right around the time all the car companies started to die.

              I don’t know how something can be considered self-funding when it’s already spending more than it takes in and at current projections will be unable to meet obligations in 19 years. Without massive cuts to benefits or large tax increases, social security is going to be bankrupt by the time I’m 44. I have a difficult time seeing how that can be considered self-funding.

        2. Huh? Until a couple of years ago it was literally true; contributions exceeded payouts.

          That’s because they shifted the tax rate over time. If we were paying the same 1% rate as when SS was originally established, SS would be screwed.

          If SS actually paid for itself, they never would have needed to adjust the original rate.

  22. Excellent article in WaPo explaining, contra Rubin, why arming only the moderate rebels in Syria was never an option:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..mic-state/

    1. First, the term ‘moderate rebels’ really needs to be put in quotation marks whenever you’re discussing the Middle East.

      There are an awful lot of ‘moderate’ Middle Eastern politicians who do things like argue that the Holocaust never happened and give guns to Al Qaeda.

      1. Leaving aside the more obvious contradiction of using “moderate” to modify “rebel”, of course.

        1. I was reading about the Muslim Brotherhood recently and saw someone claim the MB has become more ‘moderate’ over time. That’s completely untrue. What’s happened is that Islamic terrorists have gotten increasingly radical, so the Muslim Brotherhood can behave exactly like it’s always behaved and appear more moderate by comparison.

          Hell, Al Qaeda seems moderate compared to ISIS. Moderate/extremist are useless terms since they only have value relative to what you’re comparing them to. A moderate Imam in Iran would be considered a psychotic radical anywhere in the West.

          1. Oh, and her MB connection is another pothole in the path of the “inevitable” Hillary.

      2. That’s a good way to frame the discussion of Obama to PB, actually.

        Obama is a moderate, but only when you frame him as a Total Statist and Shill of the Left.

        1. It’s funny; polls consistently show that about 38% of the country identifies as Democrat, but only 23% as liberal. That means that at least 40% of Democrats don’t consider themselves to be liberals… how in the world did they end up with the liberal platform and liberal leadership?

          1. Their party got hijacked by the left in the post-McGovern years, and especially the post-Clinton years.

  23. That’s not a woman, that’s a man… what? Uh, well she certainly does look rather manish, no?

    Maybe the caption was supposed to read that she could make a man sick by showing that photo and saying that it’s a woman?

    1. Come on, you can’t make the reference without posting the clip.

  24. So, Jen, if BHO had a bologna sandwich yesterday and I had a bologna sandwich today, does that make me his confederate? Nice of Rubin to remind us why the hubristic idiots behind W are at least as dangerous as the idiots behind Obama, as though we don’t remember.

    Obama has one good idea in his abortion of a presidency–namely not starting (large) wars (so far) that kill thousands of Americans, invite terrorist blowback, and waste a couple trillion dollars–and that’s where Rubin chooses to attack him while sneering at Rand Paul’s attempts to expand the appeal of her own damn party, which the neocons have made exceptionally unpopular the past eight years.

    I can’t figure out if she’s simple or an ass or a simple ass.

    1. I can’t figure out if she’s simple or an ass or a simple ass.

      I’m gonna make it simple for you. She’s an insufferable biotch. How’s that? It’s simple, it’s elegant, it’s true.

      1. BTW, I’m working on my very first cracker rap song, you know, cracker rap, it’s a little known genre, but it’s got great potential. My first song is ‘the biotch’. It would be about any Murican woman, just sayin….

        1. BTW, that’s pronounced ‘bee-otch’. Got it? I had to mansplain, cause the patriarchy, I can’t help it, it’s in my genes.

          1. Just as long as you don’t affect a Jamaican accent. The world is only big enough for one Snow.

            1. There’s no Jamaican accent in my song ‘The Biotch’, it’s pure Murikan Cracker!

      2. I’d just throw her in with Malkin, when the camp for neocon apologist female columnists is ready.

  25. Sentence o’ the Day, from Bleeding Heart Libertarians:

    Bleeding heart libertarianism doesn’t rule out public policies that help women with families succeed in the workforce, like affordable public childcare, subsidized family leave, elder care, or a universal basic income.

    Sure, libertarians are all about that public assistance — can’t remember them having unkind words about it. As I recall, libertarianism actually started as a government advocacy movement to increase government funding for social welfare. Remember when Ayn Rand and Walter Block cowrote that book where the protagonist is a government lobbyist looking to increase handouts to poor people? Good times.

    Oh, and article’s name is “A Feminist Libertarian Dilemma”. Naturally.

    1. Subsidized family leave is actually to the left of what America currently has. They’re actually arguing for the United States to be more statist while calling themselves libertarians.

    2. Subsidized family leave is actually to the left of what America currently has. They’re actually arguing for the United States to be more statist while calling themselves libertarians.

      1. Even though you had to say it twice, and I don’t know why, what with H&R’s super advanced editing features and all, I have to say this.

        Being libertarian right now is cool, you know, so lots of kids need to be libertarian even though they don’t know what it means, don’t know what it means, and I say…

        1. You’re not wrong. Most of my friends and co-workers think Libertarians are anarchists or republicans.

          And trying to have a conversation about freedom is a lot like smashing my face into a wall. When you try and explain that no, in fact, the government was NOT always this way and in fact should be less large and obtrusive, they go insane.

          How, oh how, will we live our lives without rules? Without the government to protect us, there will be murder and rape and dead babies and horses eating each other!

          Then they cradle themselves and cry until they pass out. Good times.

          1. Or as the Fox News correspondent asked Ron Paul, “how could we afford to build government buildings like the Capitol behind you without the income tax????!!”

            To which Ron Paul replied, “the Capitol was built before the income tax was enacted”.

      2. Right. In Bo’s honor, I should start a blog called “Godly libertarians” or “pro-America libertarians” in which I argue that Godly libertarianism doesn’t rule out public policies that help keep America strong, like anti-miscegenation laws or mandatory tithing. Then I’ll get pissed whenever someone questions how in the hell I am libertarian in any way, shape or form.

        Actually, I think I’ll just have Gary North ghost-write it.

    3. The phrase “bleeding heart libertarianism” is akin to the phrase “Holy Roman Empire”.

      1. +Voltaire

    4. “A Feminist Libertarian Dilemma”

      or “The dilemma of wanting everyone to like you”

    5. Hayek and Friedman both supported rule-based state action like providing a basic income or otherwise universal, non-arbitrary services. Whether that manipulates them into being useful idiots for social democrats depends on perspective, as both were much more diplomatic than the Rand/Rothbard contingent and had more direct influence on the world and mainstream intellectuals.

      From what I’ve read, mostly Brennan’s stuff, the BHL perspective is very close to continental liberalism and Hayek in particular, which is much less likely to view the state with suspicion than Americans are. That’s a flaw given the nature and origins of the state, but even if they merit criticism sometimes for their squishyness, I’m not about to make the tent so small that Hayek and Brennan get the Ayn Rand treatment.

      1. I disagree, Knarf. I don’t think BHLs are close to Hayek at all. Brennan, whom you cite, is often labled as a “strong” BHL, as opposed to someone like Rodrick T. Long, who merely argues that a libertarian/anarchist world would allow for increased social mobility for the poor, which should be a selling point that is highlighted. Brennan, on the other hand, in my interpretation accepts a priori that social justice is not only a compatible concept with liberty, but that when liberty and social justice come into conflict, social justice should win out. Such a view is antithetical to what Hayek argued.

        1. A lot of this is going to depend on which Hayek we’re talking about. Like Friedman, Hayek became more libertarian as he grew older, and his attacks on the idea of social justice came pretty late. IIRC, one of his favorite attacks on social justice was because it was what he called “arbitrary,” meaning that the process of implementing social justice chose winners and losers in society rather than being universal. Fundamentally, late Hayek was against cronyism and cutouts, and I think that BHLs believe the same. Meaning they may define “social justice” differently than Hayek.

          Compare the LLL Hayek with RTS Hayek, where he condemns hardcore, “wooden” advocates of laissez-faire as anti-liberal. That’s a punch in the gut for your modern libertarian who’s always being told what a lion of liberalism Hayek was, and he was accepted very quickly into the Volker contingent of emergent libertarians shortly after that book made him a star. Point being that we’ve always had a pretty broad tent, even if Read spent most of his time gnashing his teeth at the Europeans.

          I’ll dig around on Brennan more to see what he thinks about social justice and Hayek’s “arbitrary” standard, but the big feature of BHLs that I’ve seen is that they are much more defensive of the Lockean proviso, whereas that looks to me and many cornucopians like a remnant of a world that viewed capital as much more limited than it’s turned out to be (see the universal 19th-century obsession with land).

          1. A lot of this is going to depend on which Hayek we’re talking about. Like Friedman, Hayek became more libertarian as he grew older, and his attacks on the idea of social justice came pretty late.

            Very true. I’ll concede that.

            Meaning they may define “social justice” differently than Hayek.

            It’s not Hayek’s or even Rawls’ definition that worries me as much as when doing libertarian “missionary” work the term “social justice” is a false friend in that in the statist realm it definitively implies redistribution of wealth. So when BHLs make common cause with Progressives, each might think the other has accepted their definition of the term. And won’t the BHLs be horrified when the Progressives start to lead glasses-wearers into the killing fields!

            Point being that we’ve always had a pretty broad tent

            Until very recently I was as “thin” as they come. However, lately I have come to believe that there are some non-negotiables. One of them being an acceptance that free men aren’t equals, and equal men aren’t free.

            but the big feature of BHLs that I’ve seen is that they are much more defensive of the Lockean proviso

            Could you elaborate on that, please?

            1. Agree on the general thrust of BHLs’ emphasis on justice. They have a particular need to be careful in how they communicate their ideas to avoid confusion.

              I’m with Block in thinking that the Lockean proviso is just a giant backdoor to socialist aggression and rates with Smith’s support of labor theory as one of the great mistakes of historical liberalism. On the fifth-grade level, saying that everyone can keep his stuff provided that everyone else also has enough supposes that everyone else will agree that they’ve got enough, which they never do.

              It also leads to people like Chomsky running around saying that private property inevitably means that the proletariat can work for the man or starve, whereas cornucopians think that they’ll work for the man and eat well and have massive homes and flatscreen tvs, whereas they won’t have any of these without some respect for win-win behavior.

              The BHL articles I’ve read seem to take Locke’s great mistake as gospel truth and share with Chomsky the idea that we need to do something to help the poor rather than getting out of the way of the market. I should qualify by saying that I don’t regularly patrol BHL material (unless you consider Richman one), though I hear them now and then on Youtube and have picked up a couple of Brennan’s books.

              1. I got it. Thanks.

                ‘m with Block in thinking that the Lockean proviso is just a giant backdoor to socialist aggression

                I agree. Though, I will posit that there is nothing inherently wrong with establishing a cultural norm of “don’t take more than you can use”, the problem is that all too often mores become legislation, which in turn, are backed by force.

                I don’t regularly patrol BHL material (unless you consider Richman one)

                I seem to recall Richman self-identifying as a (lower-case) BHL, but I could be mistaken.

      2. I’m more of a moderate classical liberal in the Hayek/Friedman vein, though perhaps I’d go less in for rule-based utilitarianism than them.

        My problem with the quote is that it is a rhetorical tack. Friedman more or less allowed for the possibility of Basic Income as a replacement of welfare, but his argument regarding why Basic Income would be preferable was as compelling an argument for abolishing welfare as for establishing a Basic Income. Basic Income was not merely argued for on its own merits, but as a thought experiment for why the poor are poor and why today’s welfare state will not help them get rich. Hayek hand-waves very basic social supports to clarify that the issues he sees as truly harmful originate from the regulatory and nationalization impulses.

        In this article, it’s a “but of course we’re not kin to those crazy libertarians who think you should be allowed to sell your own mother or see people starve in the streets, we’re reasonable like you guys” — an attempt to ingratiate oneself with the people who are running things. The Friedman/Hayek approach was dispassionate, disinterested and incremental; the BHL approach is interested in having their brand of libertarianism be acceptable. The author describes herself as a libertarian anarchist; why would she write so as to endorse an expanded state role in public provision? As it seems to me, it is a way of having your cake and eating it too: having an ideology without actually having to defend its implications.

        1. I agree with that take, and your last paragraph sums up a lot of libertarian ambivalence for the Benton/Root contingent who see minimizing or ignoring ideological differences as the way for us to get ahead politically. Hayek wanted to win the hearts and minds of intellectuals and then second-hand informers, and Friedman presumably saw himself in the same role.

          A lot of my ambivalence about left-libertarianism is that it does have the potential to open up respectful dialogues with intelligent social democrats in a Popper-Hayek way due to their approach if not their ideology, which more often than not seems confused or utilitarian.

          1. Right, I used to have ambivalence but it has since turned into disdain. Sure, I understand the potential for respectful dialogues — but it’s a waste of time to dialogue if you have nothing of significance to say, either because you are compromised by how you minimize ideological differences or because you have dissembled a much stronger argument for your position into a far weaker form that is exclusively palatable for adherents of the other ideology. At some point, equality and social justice need to be strongly attacked as a compelling argument for government action, as they are competing theories for how to use force which are anti-libertarian.

            It’s fine to argue outcomes (e.g., libertarian economics will help the poor and libertarian philosophy does not patronize the poor). It’s not OK to tiptoe around ideology in an attempt to obtain dialogue by for example suggesting that social justice is a valid lens through which to view issues of violence; it is the coward’s way out of arguing ideology. When you aren’t arguing ideology, then what, exactly, is the libertarian contribution to a debate with progressives? Personality? A handful of specific policies? Putting the shine to the progressive vision of government by suggesting “pro-market” fixes seems little different to me than being tax collector for the welfare state, to borrow a phrase, and it shouldn’t be the ultimate aspiration of libertarian politics.

      3. “the BHL perspective is very close to … Hayek in particular”

        Bullshit. And the basic income idea was to REPLACE any vestige of a welfare state. Cheaper and with fewer assholes telling people what to do.

        I’m not sure what you misunderstand more, the BHL view or Hayek. I suspect it is the former.

        1. Shhh. Grownups speaking.

          1. And to ensure that you understand why I’m dismissing you, I’ll repeat myself by saying that the point is not whether or not a negative IT replaces welfare, but whether universal, non-arbitrary welfare states are permissible for both Hayek and BHLs, both of whom see a much larger role for the state than do serious contemporary libertarians in the FEE tradition.

    6. like affordable public childcare, subsidized family leave

      The thing about making me pay for some cunt’s kid with a gun to my head is that i am also paying for some dick’s kid as well (science!!).

      I am going to go out on a limb and say anti-cuckoldry is not inconsistent with libertarianism.

  26. Chris Matthews sees silver lining in Ferguson riots. Try to guess what it is:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYoj1r0j6aA

    1. My takeaway from this is that Chris Matthews advocates killing black teenagers as a means of increasing Democratic voter participation.

      Admittedly, I could be wrong. Maybe he could tearfully deny it on the air to reassure me.

      1. killing black teenagers as a means of increasing Democratic voter participation

        Hey, it works in Chicago.

    1. “American Burger.”

      Who the fuck is Matthews trying to appeal to?

      Conservatives?

      Do Black democrat millennial women feel all patriotic about eating an American burgers?

  27. Chris Matthews & Lieawatha- featuring a history lesson followed by a cat fight.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puVrkf7ORB4

    1. First of all, Matthews is a fucking pussy. If he was not a pussy, the first question would be ‘So, if you’re going to go around pretending to be a native american, which you obviously are not, why the fuck should we believe one word out of your trap?’

      Secondly, you say that there is not opportunities for Americans today, like there was decades ago. Ok, why? Let’s talk about why, and let’s not leave the government out of this conversation.

    2. Interesting to see Warren lament the loss of a golden age which existed before 1980.

      The Democrat’s bench sure is looking empty right now.

      1. Interesting to see Warren lament the loss of a golden age which existed before 1980.

        I find it especially hilarious that the 1950s, Vietnam and Nixon are considered some Golden Age by the progs.

        1. I find it especially hilarious that the 1950s, Vietnam and Nixon are considered some Golden Age by the progs.

          I always tease progs by telling them I’ll be more than happy to go back to Eisenhower-era tax rates if they’re willing to go back to Eisenhower-era budgets (the ones that spent less than 1/3 of Obozo’s, inflation-adjusted, and had 50% devoted to military expenditures, double the current rate). Oddly enough, even though I’m willing to compromise, I haven’t gotten any takers yet.

    1. I’m going to need a GILMORE ruling on the suit thing.

      1. It was nice. Should have been a maroon tie, but whatever.

        The kerfuffle about it is partly that ‘presidents are expected to maintain ‘uniform'”

        He stepped out of uniform.

        IMHO it was a calculated act to get people talking about something other than the fact that he was double-punting in that press conference. He’ll get back to you later when he figures out what Foreign Policy stance is the most politically convenient. They have insuffient polling at the moment.

        1. That’s not it. He’s given speeches in polo shirts or flannels and jeans before and nobody mentioned anything about “being out of uniform”. That suit just looked really bad on him.

          1. I think it had to do with wearing light colours so close to labour day.

            Note: yes my spellcheck is set UK.

    2. It’s the color of sand.

      Top that, bitches, top it!

      1. “The tides comes in, the tide goes out.

        You can’t explain that without GOD!”

    3. It’s the color of sand.

      Top that, bitches, top it!

      1. It’s 3 times the color of sand!!!

  28. I’m drinking a new wheat beer, from a local brewery. It’s not so bad, but I like my heffe’s pure, so I can add my own fruitiness if desired. The name is American Wheat Ale and the brewery is Public Works Ale, or Peabody Heights Brewery. So this is a little too fruity out of the bottle, but still it’s pretty clean and crisp. Sort of pisses me off that I can’t add a lemon without it being overkill, though. So, just make me a good wheat beer and let me add my own fruitiness.

    I’ve been eyeing my wife’s stash of Chivas Regal for a few minutes here…

    1. Two-hearted (IPA) and then Negronis. Another negroni any second now. Might still com back to IPA tonight.

      1. Got into the wifey’s stash. I’m not a liquor drinker, but wow this is good…

    2. Beer isn’t supposed to made out of wheat.

  29. “*No one* is calling for Islamists to win in Syria. They are trying to aid the Free Syrian Army, which is fighting both Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the Islamic State.”

    You see, we don’t want to support the Islamists, we just want to fight the same guy they’re fighting by supporting sketchy rebel groups whose arms would never fall, no way no how, into Islamist hands! We simply want to overthrow the same guy the Islamists are trying to overthrow, but in a way which *weakens* the Islamists – why don’t you isolationist cowards understand this?

    “early intervention in Syria, well before jihadis flowed into the country, and then ventured back into Iraq, would have prevented a bloody civil war with dire consequences.”

    And since nobody can disprove my assertions about events in an alternative universe, I’ve clearly won the argument!

    1. How about we just watch them all kill each other and use up all of their resources? Yeah, I know, novel idea, but it just might work and save us a few bucks and lives.

    2. Even with impeccable timing and luck, I fear it still would have been like supporting the Constitutional Democrats in Russia in 1917 and hoping things would torn out well. So she’s doing a lot of wishful thinking here.

      Still, I’ll admit I like it when dictators fall, and when Muslims are killing each other, at least they’re not killing Americans, Christians, or Jews.

  30. The creators of the Salon parody account have hacked Salon itself…

    “Why Uber must be stopped…

    “There’s little doubt that Uber is the closest thing we’ve got today to the living, breathing essence of unrestrained capitalism. This is like watching Andrew Carnegie or John D. Rockefeller in action. This is how robber barons play. From top to bottom, the company flaunts a street-fighter ethos….

    “What happens when Uber’s priorities turn to generating cash rather than spending it? What happens to labor ? the Uber drivers ? when they have no alternative but Uber? What happens when it rains and the surge-pricing spikes and there’s nowhere else to go? A company with the street-fighting ethos of Uber isn’t going to let drivers unionize, and it certainly isn’t going to pay them more than it is required to by the harsh laws of competition. It will also dump them entirely in a nanosecond when self-driving cars prove that they are cheaper and safer. Making the case that drivers are benefitting from the current recruitment wars starts to look like a pretty short-term play. The more powerful Uber gets, the more leverage it will have over labor.”

    http://www.salon.com/2014/08/3…..e_stopped/

    1. This is like watching Andrew Carnegie or John D. Rockefeller in action. This is how robber barons play. From top to bottom, the company flaunts a street-fighter ethos….

      I wanna be sure I understand this: Rockefeller reduces oil prices by a factor of eight and provides affordable energy for the poor (the rich hardly notice), and Carnegie drives down the price of steel by 80%, then donates his wealth to the world in an unparalleled act of Christian charity. These are the dreaded robber barons characterized by a “street-fighter ethos.”

      “What happens to labor ? the Uber drivers ? when they have no alternative but Uber?”

      So . . . you’re concerned about regulatory capture and cartelization? Welcome to libertarianism!

      1. “What happens to labor ? the Uber drivers ? when they have no alternative but Uber?”

        Gee I dunno, they find a job doing something else? What is it with progs and their belief in castes?!

        1. “What happens to labor ? the Uber drivers ? when they have no alternative but Uber?”

          They’ll work when they want to, make more money, and won’t have to pay dues or go on strike?

      2. The article made me think of this:

        Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion ? when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing ? when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors ? when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you ? when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice ? you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that it does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.

      3. What will happen when Salon finally stops throwing money down the toilet hiring morons to write clickbait!? What will happen to the armies of prog journos?? HOW WILL THEY SURVIVE IN THE CAPITALIST WASTELAND?!?

    2. “What happens when Uber’s priorities turn to generating cash rather than spending it? What happens to labor ? the Uber drivers ? when they have no alternative but Uber? What happens when it rains and the surge-pricing spikes and there’s nowhere else to go

      I can think of only one entity that could realistically manufacture a circumstance where Uber was the only option and it isn’t Uber.

    3. It will also dump them entirely in a nanosecond when self-driving cars prove that they are cheaper and safer.

      pretty sure all Taxi drivers will be out of work when the robots take over…Uber or no Uber.

  31. Lucy Steigerwald ?@LucyStag 1h
    Everyone pay @Steigerwald_B tribute, for today is his birthday. A+ Dad, would be raised by again.
    Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More

    Retweeted by Lucy Steigerwald
    Bill Steigerwald ?@Steigerwald_B 1h
    @LucyStag THANKS TO SUPER DAUGHTER LUCY. BIRTHDAY WISHES ARE LIBERTARIANLY CORRECT.
    RETWEETS
    2
    FAVORITES
    3
    MonteLucy SteigerwaldCory M?ssiminoArdent Crayon
    7:03 PM – 31 Aug 2014 ? Details

  32. Andrew McCarthy’s analysis vs. Rubin’s analysis – catfight!

    http://www.nationalreview.com/…..c-mccarthy

    1. “A radical muslim wants to kill you

      A moderate muslim wants a radical muslim to kill you”

      there is truth in this

    2. We was great in Weekend at Bernie’s.

      1. *He* was great in Weekend at Bernie’s.

  33. OT – I saw a full-car ad on the subway yesterday for some sort of “Earth march” – their goal is “100% renewable energy!”. One of the ad panels was like “OMG we don’t want another Hurricane Sandy!11!”, because I guess that was “caused” by oil or something. It was at this point I understood that it really is a religion with these people.

    OMG here’s the link – “People’s Climate March”. Rolls off the tongue, doesn’t it.
    http://peoplesclimate.org/march/

    1. Committed to principles of environmental justice and equality

      Environmental justice.

      Environmental.

      Justice.

      1. I wonder if these idiots recognize at all that no country with “People’s” in its name is on their side, and in fact they will laugh in their face at this as they continue to pollute with reckless abandon.

      2. So they’re Bleeding Heart Libertarians? Is Sheldon Richman and Roderick Long part of the People’s Climate March?

  34. To a neocon columnist like Rubin, everyone looks like an appeaser, even a neocon like Obama.

  35. So I’ve come to observe that the only thing more obsessive than Reason writers pimping their books on Hit and Run is Reason writers pimping their books on Twitter.

    I hope Ed gets it done but, fuck.

  36. But what do Millenials? think about this?

    1. I think they’re occupied with the nude pix of Jennifer Lawrence etc. that just leaked.

      1. Holy shit, off to Google I go!!!!

        Is 33 millenial?

        1. And upon finding them, DEAR SWEET JESUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111!1!!!1

    2. Try Reason
      *Now with Extra-Chewy Millenial?!
      **Actually the crunchy bits are dried Millenial? too
      ***And, being honest, the glue holding the crunchy and chewy bits together are actually derived from Extract-of-Millenial?
      ****The wrapper has something by Sheldon Richman. Its not about Millenials?, we SWEAR!!
      *****Ok, that was a little misleading. Sheldon was replaced at the last minute with a Millenial? writer named Cody. He writes about the Russian Military… which he says is a real problem… because of…. Transphobia? And he has a blog devoted to …. Millenial?-issues…

  37. We’ve got a new , must be posting on threads off the main Reason site.

    Have fun with him.

    1. Dammit, meant to be prog member.

  38. I think the whole “Libertarians should support social justice” thing makes about as much sense as saying that libertarians should call themselves Communists because we oppose the current economic system and support decentralizing power and people organizing themselves in voluntary communities or we are Fascists because we think of voluntary unity as a strength and we oppose arbitrary state power.

  39. Come on man lets rol lwith the punches. Wow.

    http://www.Crypt-Anon.tk

  40. It’s not that hard to tell them apart.

    “History teaches us of the dangers of overreaching, and spreading ourselves too thin, and trying to go it alone without international support, or rushing into military adventures without thinking through the consequences.”

    I could easily tell you that this was not Rand Paul. This is not an expression of non-interventionism. This is an expression against unilateralism. That’s all. It’s obvious.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.