Zoning

Washington's Beautiful, Illegal Tiny Houses

Architectural minimalism runs afoul of outdated regulations in the nation's capital.

|

"I got driven down the tiny house road because of affordability, simplicity, sustainability, and then mobility," says Jay Austin, who designed a custom 140-square-foot house, which is part of a showcase community of minuscule homes located in an alley lot in Washington, D.C.

Despite its size, Austin's house—The Matchbox—is stylish, well built, and it includes all of life's necessities (and some of its luxuries): a bathroom, a shower, a modest kitchen, office space, and a bedroom loft. There is even a hot tub outside.

Clever design elements make the most of minimalism. Austin's high ceilings, skylight, and wide windows give the small space a modern, uncluttered, and open feel.

Ranging in price from $10,000 to $50,000, tiny homes like The Matchbox could help to ease the shortage of affordable housing in the capital city, where the median price per square foot has climbed to a staggering $450. Heating and cooling costs are negligible. Rainwater catchment systems help to make the homes self-sustaining. They're an attractive option to the very sort of residents whom the city attracts in abundance: single, young professionals without a lot of stuff, who aren't ready to take on a large mortgage.

But tiny houses violate several city regulations. Among the many requirements in the 34 chapters and 600 pages of code that govern D.C.'s land use are mandates defining minimum lot size, room sizes, alleyway widths, and "accessory dwelling units" that prevent tiny houses from popping up all over the nation's capital.

Austin and his tiny-house neighbors can't actually live in their own homes much of the time. To skirt some of the zoning regulations, they've added wheels that allow the structures to be reclassified as trailers. This has a downside: As trailers, they fall under the purview of D.C.'s Department of Motor Vehicles, meaning that Austin and his neighbors are prohibited from using them as their primary residences.

The Zoning Ordinance of the District of Columbia isn't only complex—it's profoundly outdated. The code was approved in 1958, which is why it doesn't incorporate the last five decades of building innovations. The text is still filled with such outdated phrases as telegraph office and tenement house.

Exemptions and alterations to the code are possible—many are granted every year—but they don't come cheap. Lisa Sturtevant of the National Housing Conference, a D.C.-based nonprofit, estimates that the cost of moving through the typical approval process can add as much as $50,000 to the price of a new single-family unit. That's why wealthy and politically connected developers generally are the only ones with the money and clout to build in Washington.

A comprehensive rewrite of the zoning code has been in the works for about a decade. The new regulations will accommodate some new styles of housing, but they're likely to favor the kinds of structures that tend to be put up by large developers. While there's still hope that the new code could eventually be altered to accommodate homes like Austin's Matchbox, tiny houses won't be legal in D.C. anytime soon.

For now, Jay Austin is allowed to build the home of his dreams—he just can't live there all the time. But the Matchbox is also a showpiece: This small community of tiny houses is periodically opened to the public. Hopefully, that will bring more public support for an exciting new approach to easing the city's shortage of affordable housing.

NEXT: Law enforcement on the Internet - the role of the domain name registrars

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. WHO SAID YOU COULD DO THAT?

  2. The new regulations will accommodate some new styles of housing, but they’re likely to favor the kinds of structures that tend to be put up by large developers.

    Preposterous hogwash!

  3. Our wonderful frenemy Erdogan in Turkey has proclaimed that it was Muslims who discovered the Americas.

    What a fucking piece of work. Giving them a couple of hours in the National Cathedral wasn’t enough; he wants the throat-cutters to believe that all of the Americas beling to them. Trying to encourage more attacks on us, mister Prime Minister?

    1. Trying to encourage more attacks on us, mister Prime Minister?

      Yes, yes I am.

      1. The thing is, one of these days an attack on us is going to strike a nerve at exactly the wrong time, and then heel will go for a walk with the sleeves rolled up (to use Sir Terry Pratchett’s admirable phrase). The Islamotwits cannot seriously damage us, but we can lay waste to the middle east most effectively.

        It won’t be a good thing when we do, mind. It will change us in ways that neither we nor the rest 0f the world will like. It it will happen.

        Oh, there will still be Islamotwits, hanging on on the fringes of the world. There were after the Mongols “made a desert and called it peace”. But they won’t affect much, other than making the life of the villages near their dens miserable.

        The Left and the Islamotwits have convinced themselves that we can’t accomplish anything in the Middle East. That is so much eyewash. Perhaps – probably even – we can’t accomplish anything good, but that is a different matter. Get us mad enough and Mecca and Medina will vanish in nuclear fire, the Saudis will be chased into the empty quarter, all the mosques in the West will be close (most with bulldozers), and the Palestinians will be driven into the sea and held there until they stop kicking. There isn’t a single problem in that part of the world that could not be reduced to trivia with enough brute force and ruthlessness.

        1. Cntd.

          I won’t like us much when we are done, but I WILL take the sad satisfaction that the nitwits who get it in the neck – the Islamotwits and the Western Intellectual Whiners – not only asked for it, they DEMANDED it.

        2. All of this should’ve happened after 9/11/01, but didn’t. This country is too soft and too divided. There’d have to be a French Revolution-type terror and bloodletting before the right people got in charge to accomplish any of what you describe.

    2. If the Norse Pagans were still around they’d have words for him. And a blood eagle.

    3. Is there still some sort of prestige attached to “discovering the New World”?

      1. We should call all of them by some new ‘re-discovery’ name. I think the original discovers walked across a land bridge in Alaska from Asia and they’re all dead now, so no used to heap any prestige on them.

        1. We should call all of them by some new ‘re-discovery’ name

          I should be a name that has something to do with the Americas.

          Am. . .Ameri. . .Americans?

      2. It’s a propaganda thing, it’s implying that Muslims ‘own’ the ‘New World’ by ‘discovering’ it before Columbus, meaning that the past couple hundred years of European Christian colonials are squatters. Of course this ignores the whole Clovis Bering Strait crossing and even if this were true Europeans (Leif Erikson) beats their claim by almost two hundred years.

        1. And the answer is “And if you did, like most things you “discovered” before the West, you pissed that potential advantage away and continued to live under conditions of barbarism and squalor. So, we should listen to you, why, exactly?”

    4. Obama will use executive action to change history, so everything will be ok. I think they should also honor the Muslims for inventing camel fucking.

      1. You know what usually goes over well with libertarianism? Islamophibia. Oh wait a minute, that’s conservatives, not libertarians (who tend to reject the collectivism, alarmism and chauvinism running through that). But you wouldn’t know it from the posts preceding this one.

        1. To be fair, Camel Fucking might actually have been invented by a muslim.

          No way to be sure. And if we’re changing history for the worse anyway, then why not?

          1. Camels were apparently domesticated sometime around 3000 B.C., so it’s likely that camel fucking was developed at some point before the rise of Islam.

            1. If camels would just stop being so damn sexy, they would stop getting fucked.

              1. Some of them have TWO humps!

                1. “My humps, my humps, my lovely camel lumps.”

              2. Hey man, that camel was asking for it.

            2. Get out of here with your facts and your history.

              These have no place in our new world order.

        2. Rejecting Islam isn’t a “phobia” or un-libertarian, because it’s not irrational or un-libertarian to oppose a totalitarian religion.

          1. The generalization about a billion people and the attendant alarmism are what’s hard to square IMO

            1. Muslims profess to believe in a set if ideals. That is what it is to be a Muslim. It may hurt your fragile sensibilities that when people profess to follow warrior pedophiles others find those ideals detestable.

              The generalization is from Muslims, if they didn’t like it they wouldn’t describe themselves as Muslims. So unless you’re going to lecture Muslims you can go fuck yourself with your bullshit nonsense about generalizations.

            2. Bo, there’s nothing wrong with the generalization I made. If I say “Christianity involves forgiveness,” it’s true whether or not every single Christian is a forgiving person, because it’s discussed in the Bible numerous times. If you know anything about Islam, you would know that it’s a core tenet that Islam is destined to rule the world, by force if necessary, and that non-Muslims are to be second-class citizens (or dead). That’s the word of Allah as recorded by Mohammed. It’s not alarmism or a false generalization, it’s simply a true statement of the beliefs of that religion, whether or not the Muslim next door is following through on it today.

              1. One of the features of first-world economies is that they have a strong tendency to pull the fangs from religious fundamentalism. As wealth increases and Islamic nations have access to western media and literature, it’s going to be increasingly difficult to pretend that a holy book is the divine guidebook to life.

                We’re seeing the same thing in the developing economies of the Southeast. These states were basically second-world nations following WW2–most farmers didn’t have tractors until the late 40s–but current generations are trending away from fundamentalism as wealth increases. It’s a slow, multi-generational process, but I don’t see how Islamists can avoid it.

                1. Christianity (a religion which started in a relatively poorer part of the Mediterranean) started out declawed and defanged, and only adopted them after achieving high prestige in the foremost “first world” nation of the time. It was only after increased access to money and power that this religious community adopted violence as a means to achieve their ends (and certainly not in a universal sense). After the Roman empire fell, Christianity was once again largely defanged in the West — and only regained its fangs after, once again, achieving a dominant position. These fangs were removed for a third time following a re-exploration of what one might call “fundamentals” of the religion, and that was a slow process which coincided with (but was not causally motivated by) Europe’s rise to power. Nor was there a drop-off of religious sentiment during this time — to the contrary, revivalism was dominant and Europe and the US at large were very religiously active throughout the Industrial Revolution and remained so until WWI and WWII (both of which were wealth-destroying rather than first-world affirming wars).

                  I don’t think this history can be generalized to all world religions, and not all world religions share Christianity’s values, texts or early history (which were all important in determining the changes discussed above).

                  1. Re: the economics, McCloskey is fond of pointing out that there were homeostatic wages of about $3/day prior to the 19th century. Whether you’re talking imperial Rome or the Crusades, Christianity was culturally dominant from the moment it moved beyond cult status to the dominant religion of the West until the Industrial Revolution. Since then, it’s steadily lost power as a social phenomenon.

                    Christianity’s values are roughly analogous to “American values,” which is to say that there’s no there there. The idea that there exists some core to the teaching that isn’t socially determined is, I think, demonstrably false, if only from the past 100 years of American and American-Christian history. Different flavors of Christianity have variously embraced Israel, Palestine, (very) thinly veiled Marxism, progressivism, prohibition, anti-prohibition, nativism, racism, anti-racism, and even Thomistic-themed libertarianism.

                    Given enough cultural heft, people don’t care about what their holy book says or, in most Christians’ case, bother to read it, which is the chief difference between fundamentalism and gooey modern Christianity.

                    If you don’t like the Christian example, you can use Buddhism as another–in the past few generations, it’s been pro-fascist, anti-Communist, hippie-dippie, you name it. One of the reasons these systems survive for thousands of years is because they are capable of adapting to shifting cultures and circumstances.

                    1. Speculating here, but Islam hasn’t achieved this degree of malleability due to the fact that the Islamic world hasn’t yet had its own Enlightenment or, unlike other cultures (Korea and Japan), absorbed many of the benefits of the western Enlightenment. Consequently, Islamic nations are dirt poor by Western standards, and they’ll remain wastelands of fundamentalist crackpottery until they liberalize.

                      It’s not impossible that Islam will be unable to adapt to modernity, but if that’s the case, it will go extinct when some degree of economic and consequently cultural liberalization takes hold in the ME and Africa, whether that happens in the next 50 or 300 years. Extinction has also been the fate of a few religions that haven’t changed, though I suspect Islam will have the same lasting cultural power as Christianity even when few people take its holy text literally (or maybe just seriously) anymore.

                    2. Since I’m already blathering about the topic, I’d also point out that while the Catholic church and Christianity did in some sense create the western world, the nature of the religion changed dramatically over the period between the time of Jesus and the emergence of Hume, Smith, and Locke, and these changes weren’t due to the core values of a book that few people could read or a main character who is wildly different in three of the four Gospels. Jesus was a blank slate to the authors of the Gospels just as much as he is to Christians today.

                      Ehrman and Pagels have some interesting things to say about how unrecognizable 1st- and 2nd-century Christianity would be to us (and to one another) as the theology evolved. From a libertarian angle, Rothbard has a great essay about how Catholicism was responsible for the scholastics’ proto-marginal theory of value long before the Calvinist Scots like Smith made labor theory the norm.

                      My view is that the wildly varying flavors of Christian-dominated culture kept evolving until one hit on economic liberalization and the lionization of the bourgeoisie rather than the warrior class, after which we see the explosion of wealth and knowledge over a very short period of time, with the LToV existing as a temporary speed bump that we should finally put behind us in the next few generations.

                    3. Christianity’s values are roughly analogous to “American values,” which is to say that there’s no there there.

                      I think this is about as wrong as wrong can get. Are you really suggesting that there are no Bayesian priors associated with Christianity (or that if there are, that they are indistinguishable from those of any other religion)? It would be counter-intuitive to suggest this, especially if one is an atheist (I believe you identify that way, though I’m not sure). If there is no distinction between any belief system in either belief or practice as opposed to any other, what is the point in examining, associating, or disassociating with any belief system? Merely from a deductive standpoint, your contention lacks grounding. I believe that this is reinforced by the history I outline above: rather than being dragged to reform by the crucible of economic inevitability, it would seem that Christianity as a whole reformed itself and branched out to the extremis of its various historical tendencies through the various denominations of Christianity.

                      The model you suggest (a sort of economic inevitability with all else as superstructure) is insufficient; as already stated, it does not explain the religious dynamism of the Industrial Revolution nor the drop-off in religious fervor experienced in parts of the West after the two World Wars. There are too many conflicting pieces of data to apply this to Christendom (much less other religions and regions).

                    4. As for Ehrman and Pagels, Pagels is extremely dishonest and sensationalistic (to say the least). Her thesis on the Apostle Paul as a Gnostic is absolutely ludicrous and lacks scholarly support; ditto her conception as Gnosticism as a unified group and the utterly bizarre idea that Gnosticism was more accepting of women than Orthodox Christianity (especially odd given her prior contention for Paul as a Gnostic). Also without basis is her claim for a strong connection between Buddhism and Christianity (though I strongly admire both, this is speculation and not academics). I cannot think of a single area where Pagel’s major research reflects the mainstream among academics who study historical Christianity.

                      Ehrman is better, but then his claims are far less sensationalistic than might appear at first glance and is nothing that educated Christians haven’t known since ~19th Century. He has some interesting theories on what might have constituted the Christian world in the 1st-2nd centuries, but they are not quite authoritative or mainstream in the same way that, say, the Documentary Hypothesis is (though I appreciate him for having written one of the best primers on how the Bible was constructed and interpreted by Christians).

                    5. Re: Pagels and Ehrman, I intended them as demonstrations for how different early Christian thought was from later and now modern Christian theologies. I’m not trumpeting their scholarly standards–not my field–but the spirit of their work, as they’re names people who have an amateur interest in Christian history might know.

                      Returning to the theme of successful religions as almost infinitely malleable, consider how Christianity has adapted to the Copernican model. The literal ascension of Jesus makes zero sense in a world where there is no physical firmament constituting the vault of the sky, nor does the spirit-body resurrection that Paul talks about. And yet Christianity as a social institution soldiered on without missing much of a beat in terms of subscribers until relatively recently.

                      That’s the mark of a successful religion, and I suspect that Islam will continue to exist when Copernicus and Hume finally arrive in the ME, whenever that may be.

                    6. The meaning of atheist is as fraught as liberal. I’m not a materialist. I have no confidence in the ability of a supercharged ape brain to answer the big ontological questions.

                      Are you really suggesting that there are no Bayesian priors associated with Christianity (or that if there are, that they are indistinguishable from those of any other religion)?

                      I’m saying there are no immutable core values in the strains of the very different religions that we call Christianity out of convenience. Can you name some Christian values that have been consistent to Christiandom from the first-century forward? Which do you think is primary: that the Christian Bible affected western culture, or that the development of western culture (including European theology, which strays wildly from the basic Pauline/Biblical material) affected Christianity?

                      I’m in the latter camp. When it was primarily a Jewish phenomenon, Christianity was wildly different from what it became under Rome, which was different from what it became under Luther/Calvin, which was different from what it is today. Treating Christianity as though it has some atomic core is a bit weird if you think about it. At what point do we stop reducing a religion to its “core” values? Why stop at the post-Paul tradition–why not say that it’s the values of the Torah that fed into the Christian Canon that are the real foundation of the west?

                    7. It’s clear enough to me that the western values that led to the Enlightenment and our material wealth are Greco-Roman, namely Aristotelian thought that became so important to developed Catholicism (along with neoplatonism, which didn’t contribute much to material wealth). The fundamental force behind western dynamism was the emphasis on reason, which was reinforced by the Jewish and then Christian concept of the world as a creation that, when studied as a thing by Aristotelian-minded rationalists, would reveal the mind of the Creator. It hasn’t turned out that way, but that was the idea.

                      The model you suggest … is insufficient; as already stated, it does not explain the religious dynamism of the Industrial Revolution nor the drop-off in religious fervor experienced in parts of the West after the two World Wars.

                      It’s unclear why you’d think that there would necessarily be a sudden, dramatic decline of religion the moment wages began to rise with the IR. The importance of religion did decline for some people, chiefly intellectuals like Jefferson, but the West remained fundamentally divided into rich and poor until the emergence of the middle class post-WW2.

                      Then, when efficient farming tech releases millions of people into a wildly varied division-of-labor society with all the distractions that it affords, the emphasis on religious doctrine begins to fade.

                      Is that a coincidence? Is it only westerners who respond to modern wealth this way?

                2. As wealth increases and Islamic nations have access to western media and literature, it’s going to be increasingly difficult to pretend that a holy book is the divine guidebook to life.

                  If only that were true, but to some extent, the opposite is the case. In the case of Islam, the most radical varieties have often come from the more economically advanced nations, and/or Muslims with the most access to Western culture: Qutb and the Muslim Brotherhood, bin Laden, Iran, the jihadis of France and the UK and the rest of Europe, the resurgence of fundamentalism in Turkey, etc.

                  Fundamentalist Islam is attractive to Muslims struggling to accept the modern world. Instead of rejecting their religion, they embrace it harder.

                  1. We still have fundamentalism in the United States as well, but fewer of them with each generation as our incomes swell. And the US has a per capita income of about twice that of Saudi Arabia, which means that we’re at least a generation ahead of them economically.

                    I agree that fundamentalism is at heart a reaction to the anxieties of modernity, but my argument is that it’s far more difficult to reject modernity for an austere, literal view of a religious text when you have access to the internet, biology and history textbooks, Reason.com, and every other resource that shakes people out of their simple attachment to their parents’ religious faith.

                    It takes generations, and there are plenty of x-factors that can delay questioning, like sufficiently high disposable incomes, a state-censored internet, and, uh, getting your head chopped off for questioning the Prophet, but it wasn’t too many centuries ago that Calvin and co. were burning heretics at the stake. As they continue to encounter the post-Enlightenment West, the ME is going to have to reconcile Islam to modernity on an intellectual level, and when that happens, Islam either adapts or dies, same as Christianity.

                    1. it’s far more difficult to reject modernity for an austere, literal view of a religious text when you have access to the internet, biology and history textbooks

                      It’s quite possible to reject modernity when your religious text tells you to do so. As I’ve said before around here, Christianity and Islam aren’t equivalent in major ways.

                      The Bible: written in a handful of languages by dozens of people in different cultures over hundreds of years.

                      Christianity: no longer spread by force, tolerates apostates, atheists, and other religions, and intra-Christian religious wars ended hundreds of years ago.

                      The Koran: written (supposedly) by one person, taking dictation from Allah (who speaks Arabic and has the master copy of the Koran in Heaven). Little room for interpretation.

                      Islam: Still spread by force, intolerant of apostates, atheists, and other religions, with intra-religious wars still ongoing.

                      Islam is simply inherently less tolerant, less flexible, and more violent.

                    2. I agree with the material facts of your post, but the thing that makes modern Christianity viable is that Christians don’t read the Bible. Christians don’t know Paul from Peter or understand why Mark’s Jesus is so different from Matthew’s. Christianity, as it is practiced popularly today, is a melange of feel-goodism mega-church goofery where people spend 10x as much time listening to Christian rock in their cars as they do reading the Bible.

                      And the reason why they don’t read the Bible is because HBO, ABC, and modern novels are more intriguing to them. Wealth has unlocked a world that is far more interesting to the average person than unenlightened Catholic or fundamentalist dogma is, and this is precisely why Islam would ultimately fail if it came face to face with Chili’s, the cineplex, and Netflix.

            3. The thing is, when the West held that Islam was barbarism, and treated all Islamic societies on that assumption, many Islamic or part Islamic societies started dragging themselves out of the dark ages. And now that we are too terrified of being called “Racists”, the Islamic societies are being taken over by nuts, and the muslims who might like to live in something approximating a free society are keeping their heads down ?. in the hope of keeping their heads.

              Now, I won’t claim that being held in contempt by the West motivated the Middle East to move forward, or that being treated with kid gloves motivated them to backslide. But there is enough coincidence to make me want to check out the possibility of causation.

  4. You don’t say

    Jonathan Gruber, an economist, suggested last year that the administration’s signature health-care legislation passed in part because of the “stupidity of the American voter” and a “lack of transparency” over its funding mechanisms.

    I just heard about this,” Obama said at a new conference, after wrapping up two days of meetings with world leaders here at the G-20 Summit. “The fact that some adviser who never worked on our staff expressed his opinion that I completely disagree with ? it is no reflection on the actual process that was run.”

    It marked the first time Obama has weighed in on the video, which became public after he left Washington for a week-long trip to Asia. Gruber is an MIT economics professor and health care policy expert who was a paid consultant for the Obama administration on the Affordable Care Act.

    How the fuck would Dipshit know how the process worked?

    1. He wouldn’t. The funny thing is that this Grubwr thing has legs. Otherwise the court media wouldn’t have asked him about it

    2. “I just heard about this,” Obama said at a new conference

      Is there anything in the fucking WORLD this man hears about the day it happens?

      1. He’s too busy listening to Americans’ private phone calls to see the news. He just listens to phone calls hoping that he can find someone who adores him. He listens and listens until he finds someone who says ‘Oh, that Obama, he’s so dreamy, I think we should give him all the power he wants’. Then he just sits in his oval office chair and listens to that over and over.

        1. Private Phone Calls, the Monika Lewinsky of the Obama Administration.

          Film at Eleven.

    3. The fact that some adviser who never worked on our staff

      What about the $400K he was paid by your agency, DHHS?

      1. In fairness, the administration gives out checks to so many people how can they be expected to know much about them?

        1. This is, despite what you may think, NOT a ringing endorsement for the administration.

        2. I suppose you’d have a point, if we weren’t talking about the signature achievement of this administration and the guy who was responsible for a significant portion of the financial analysis that made the bill passable.

          1. It was a joke about the administrations casual care of taxpayer dollars

            1. Ah, it was the fact that it wasn’t funny at all, and toally in keeping with your overly equivocating persona that confused me.

      2. In their defense, they just thought he was there to install toilet seats.

    4. I’m beginning to wonder how Gruber feels about all this? The people he strongly supported, worked for and advised now consider him a kind of retarded stepchild who shouldn’t have even been on the field let alone part of the game.

      1. It’s no fun going under the bus.

    5. “The fact that some adviser who never worked on our staff

      Ooh, what a disingenuous fuckstick. He was a paid consultant who worked with you directly, but he wasn’t “on your staff.”

    6. Maybe if it had been in the paper sooner, dumbass would have heard about it.

    7. Coming soon to a bookstore near you;

      MY PRESIDENCY; OR EIGHT YEARS WITHOUT A CLUE by Barak “I just heard about this” Obama

  5. Even the moderate and cautious Ross Douthat says that for Obama to rewrite immigration law by executive order would be a disgraceful, undemocratic, unprecedented abuse of power.

    1. He should be impeached for it. And so should Jeh Johnson for following illegal orders.

    2. Like pretty much everything he’s done.

    3. He’s not rewriting any law, just declining to prosecute people for their or their parents exercise of freedom of movement.

      1. If he goes through with the proposed plan, the administration will be issuing quasi-legal documents allowing for illegals not to be prosecuted, but also limiting their access to green cards. This goes beyond benign neglect, and is certainly something Congress needs to be taking the lead on (rather than himself).

      2. The authorities aren’t going to rewrite any law, they’re just going to decline to prosecute people for their or their parents exercise of freedom of movement when they decide to live in Bo’s backyard.

  6. Obama had to deny knowing Grubsr at the G20 Summit. Grubsr is no longer just a right wing meme.

    1. Love how he brags about destroying it plain view. Someone needs to kick his ass

      1. Someone mentioned that he actually admitted to breaking a D.C. ordinance. It’s only a $100.00 fine, but it would be hilarious if someone reported him.

    2. Wait, I saw that guy talking with Kizone Kaprow on her youtube feed after someone posted it last night. He was just as arrogant a prick there as here (claimed libertarians couldn’t get a history undergraduate, I’m not a libertarian but BITCH I’VE GOT A DAMN HISTORY UNDERGRADUATE).

      1. HAHAHAHAHAHHAA. I love arrogant college teachers. It’s not hard to get a history undergrad because college has been dumbed down and it’s now fairly easy for any moron to get a BA.

        There’s nothing impressive about a BA in 2014.

        1. I put my history undergraduate pretty damn low on my list of achievements. I basically showed up for class, wrote a few essays (really anti-government ones) and knew how to research. The only time I had issues was when I was marked poorly by pricks like him who didn’t like me ripping on things like Canadian public healthcare.

    3. Hey Irish, remember when I exposed you to life outside the matrix yesterday?

      Q:You know who else is a smug, arrogant, shitty musician with an irrational hatred of libertarians who spent time in upstate NY ?

      A:Jason Weixelbaum

      1. How old is this guy? He’s a ‘former painter’ who is currently working as an adjunct at American University. I thought he’d be like 27, but he appears to be in his 40’s…which makes his life pretty pathetic.

        1. You know who else was a former painter?

          1. Who paints formers anymore?

        2. So wait, I’m fairly close to his academic credentials at the age of 24, after taking a year off for work? What a loser.

        3. Eh, nothing inherently wrong with entering academia after pursuing another career. I was a little late in the game myself as I bounced around the world after getting my master’s.

          There are a myriad of pathetic threads from which the fabric of Weixelbaum’s life have been woven, but this isn’t particularly one of them.

          1. I personally think my favorite part is when he says some students ‘chuckled’ when he destroyed the sign.

            He’s their teacher. They were brown-nosing. This is the kind of guy who thinks a stripper likes him because she gave him a smile.

            1. You would think a Jewish historian whose fucking research interest is the goddamn Holocaust would be acutely aware of the parallels between his actions and those of the Brownshirts.

              What’s next, Kristallnacht-ing stores that dared to have had the candidate’s signs in their windows?

              1. You work in academics right? Self-awareness wasn’t exactly common in the university settings I was a part of.

              2. You would think a Jewish historian whose fucking research interest is the goddamn Holocaust would be acutely aware of the parallels between his actions and those of the Brownshirts.

                He’s aware. But because he knows his history and he’s on the Right Side of the Issues, this makes it different.

                1. But because he knows his history and he’s on the Right Side of the Issues, this makes it different.

                  Pat Condell nails it.

              3. So, tell me, have you ever seen the bumper sticker that reads “Friends Don’t Let Friends Vote Republican”?

                Do you know that every owner of said bumper sticker that I have ever asked “Isn’t that pretty much what the KKK tried to do in the South?” is actually surprised by the comparison?

          2. Eh, I’m more shitting on him for it due to his obsession with academic credentials and his claim that people he disagrees with are too stupid to achieve them.

            1. Exactly. If it weren’t for the smug, unearned arrogance. I mean, American University isn’t a bad college, but it’s nothing particularly special. It’s ranked 71st by US News and World Report whereas my college was ranked 47th.

              I’m not arrogant about graduating from the 47th ranked college because it’s not much of an accomplishment, but it’s simply astonishing that someone could behave as if going to American University is an achievement which other people aren’t capable of. It just isn’t that impressive.

              1. I went to CUA for a year. Everyone I met from AU was a progtard of the first order, aping like they were an Ivy educated wonk, but without the actual intellectual firepower.

        4. At least, as of last year, he wasn’t even an adjunct, he was a fucking TA.

          1. History of American Popular Culture

            Now I can see why he’s so proud of his position of academic power.

            I wouldn’t recommend an ass-kicking–this doesn’t seem like an offense that justifies violence, though campus cops might disagree–just commensurate destruction of his own private property, plus a bit extra for the psychological pain and suffering he inflicted.

            Maybe destroy his Vespa and call things square.

    4. As I destroyed the Libertarian lawn sign, I proclaimed, “The Free Market has spoken.”

      A few students chuckled.

      The blind leading the deaf leading the stupid.

      1. Again, they were his students. He really is a petty tyrant if he can’t tell the difference between students chuckling awkwardly while their teacher behaves like a moron and actual laughter.

        1. I don’t doubt that some of them sincerely believe that this petulant asswipe was actually making a point. Somehow, libertarians want a world where everyone is free to do whatever their want, property destruction, rape, murder, smog factories, and dope smoking, while supporting the all-powerful rule of the Kochtopus and other KKK-orporations..

          1. Somehow, libertarians want a world where everyone is free to do whatever their want, property destruction, rape, murder, smog factories, and dope smoking, while supporting the all-powerful rule of the Kochtopus and other KKK-orporations..

            Er. . .what? No we don’t.

          2. Are you insinuating that the Koch brothers, the KKK, and the private companies of the world are teaming up to rape people? I think you forgot to mention the Nazis, the Guelphs, and the Legion of Doom, I think they’re in on it too.

            But don’t worry, I think aliens and the lizard people are on your side.

          3. RPM/Mark, I took this as sarcasm.

  7. Wow, it looks it’s still snowing throughout much of the midwest. What is that, like five days in a row now it’s been snowing out there?

    Oh, and Lake Superior is starting to freeze over. If you’re thinking to yourself that it seems a little early for Lake Superior to be starting to freeze, you’re absolutely correct.

    1. Weather, not climate
      Weather, not climate

      *looks around for the Fry Guy*

      Weather, not climate!

    2. I usually say “Isn’t it good we have Global Warming, else think how bad it would be right now!”

    3. Have any of the computer models been validated?

      I know that Al Gore made some wildly exaggerated predictions that have been proven embarrassingly wrong, but have the original models/predictions been falsified yet?

    4. Russ Doudat is a weatherman now?

  8. I think we are onto something with this tiny house thing. We should make them modular and stackable. We can just revolutionize the entire welfare state starting with this concept.

    It works like this.

    When someone goes to the welfare office to apply for free shit, they just sign their name, that’s it. Then they get one free modular tiny house and free government sponsored gruel. That’s it, enough to keep them alive. I’ll even throw in free healthcare for this group, abolish Obamacare and let a free market health care system operate with much less regulation, separate from and outside of the new FOCSYOU system (Free Shit Care).

    Now, if you’ve signed up to be a free-shitter, and you want something other than tiny house, free gruel, and free healthcare, you go get a fucking job and earn the money for it. You want some intertoobz and beer this weekend? If nothing else, go stand outside of Home Depot like the illegals do, or shut the fuck up and eat your damn gruel.

    So there’s my compassion and empathy, that’s where it stops. Get in the line, Tony.

    1. But children, Hyperion!

      1. Ok, you get a bigger tiny house for up to 3 children. So that’s 4 sleeping pods instead of 1, and since gruel and healthcare are per person, you’re covered. You want to have more than 3 children, get a fucking job.

        1. Not at all! That one house is your space, and that bowl is your gruel. Period. If YOU create more bodies and mouths, YOU figure out how to take care of them.

          1. You’re really mean.

    2. When someone goes to the welfare office to apply for free shit, they just sign their name, that’s it. Then they get one free modular tiny house and free government sponsored gruel. That’s it, enough to keep them alive. I’ll even throw in free healthcare for this group,

      So, the Nordic system?

      1. Is that how the Nords do it? Seriously? Come on, it can’t be that simple. Only a libertarian could dream up something that doesn’t require massive bureaucracy to run as inefficiently as possible.

          1. I knew it had to be some kind of joke.

      2. I got in an argument with some dimwit yesterday over the WONDER AND GLORY OF SUPREME SCANDINAVIA (plus Finland)!

        I pointed out that America has a far higher median income than Finland, Denmark, or Sweden and that Norway’s higher median income is based entirely on oil money, like Saudi Arabia North.

        As a result, not only is America much richer overall, but our average household is actually richer than those Nordic countries. When you consider that, of the top ten countries, the only nation with more than 40 million is America, it becomes fairly obvious that American is vastly more successful than any country in Europe.

        He then tried to say ‘well their education is better than ours!’ and got angry when I pointed out that America has been responsible for far more scientific advances in the last 50 years than the entire continent of Europe and that we have more Nobel prizes than all of Europe combined.

        They really have nothing other than stereotypes, do they? When the facts contradict their belief in European supremacy, they just cover their ears.

        1. I love their favored tactic of comparing Europeans attending theater and the symphony with Americans attending airshows and tractor pulls, as if we have no high art and Europe has no common man entertainments.

          1. They have monster truck shows in Europe too, believe it or not.

            1. I believe it. I’m not sure progs do.

            2. It’s just that they sip tea and guzzle lager instead of sipping beer and guzzling soda.

              Yes, I know lager is a type of beer. But they serve it warm, so it doesn’t count.

          2. Here’s what progressives do. When they go to other countries, they only go to the relatively wealthy cities. As a result, they go to rich parts of London and come back convinced that all of Britain consists of rich people attending plays and going to museums.

            They’d get a slightly different view if they were less myopic and went to look at a housing block or two. A conversation with a British Chav would dissolve a few illusions.

            1. I forget who, but someone posted a link to an excellent essay about Havana that makes exactly that point.

              1. http://www.city-journal.org/2014/24_2_havana.html

                If he were still around, Hemingway would be stunned to see what has happened to his old haunt. Cubans certainly aren’t happy about it, but the tourists are another story?especially the world’s remaining Marxoid fellow travelers, who show up in Havana by the planeload. Such people are clearly unteachable. I got into an argument with one at the Floridita when I pointed out that none of the patrons were Cuban. “There are places in the United States that some can’t afford,” she retorted. Sure, but come on. Not even the poorest Americans have to pay a week’s wage for a beer.

                1. “I hate this place!” she near-shouted. Fidel himself could have heard, and she wouldn’t have cared. She wasn’t going to be quiet about it. Tourists who visit Cuba and spend all their time inside the bubble for the “haves” could leave the country oblivious to the savage inequalities and squalor beyond the hotel zone, but this woman visits her husband’s family in the real Cuba and knows what it’s really like.

                  “His family is from here,” she said, “but mine’s not, and I will never come back here. Not while it’s like this. I feel like I’m in Iraq or Afghanistan.” I visited Iraq seven times during the war and didn’t have the heart to tell her that Baghdad, while ugly and dangerous, is vastly freer and more prosperous these days than Havana. Anyway, Iraq is precisely the kind of country with which Castro wants you to compare Cuba. It’s the wrong comparison. So are impoverished Third World countries like Guatemala and Haiti. Cuba isn’t a developing country; it’s a once-developed country destroyed by its own government. Havana was a magnificent Western city once. It should be compared not with Baghdad, Kabul, Guatemala City, or Port-au-Prince but with formerly Communist Budapest, Prague, or Berlin. Havana’s history mirrors theirs, after all.

        2. But, but… they have the best healthcare!

          I always hear people talking about the wonders of Europe, how much better it is, how everyone is so blissfully happy because the government takes care of them, but I never see any of them trying to move there, not even the ones who actually have the money to do it.

          1. I always hear people talking about the wonders of Europe, how much better it is, how everyone is so blissfully happy because the government takes care of them, but I never see any of them trying to move there, not even the ones who actually have the money to do it.

            Meanwhile, rich Europeans continue to move to America, particularly if they’re Jewish and fleeing the continent due to European anti-semitism.

            There was a Sultan of the Ottoman Empire during the Jewish pogroms of the Middle Ages who talked about how Europe was destroying itself by causing their educated Jews to flee to the Ottoman Empire. As a result, the Ottomans ended up with all these great scientific and financial minds who the Europeans otherwise could have used.

            All that’s changed is where the Jews are fleeing to. European anti-Semitism is alive and well.

        3. What was his basis for thinking their education is better?! Stereotypes?

          1. Well, their educational system does produce, on average, far better test scores. The problem with the Scandinavian countries is that because of their terrible economic systems that better education does not translate into better economic outcomes or greater wealth.

            Finnish workers are far less productive than most workers in the western world (and are actually quite a bit less productive than Swedes) despite the fact that they have one of the best educational systems on Earth.

            The two best educational systems by test scores are Hong Kong and Finland, and Hong Kong kicks the everloving shit out of Finland on virtually all economic measures because their economy isn’t run by morons.

            1. Does it? My understanding of the test scores was that if you compare apples to apples, the US is very close to the top, if not the top.

              As for Hong Kong…I’m sure if Manhattan has some insanely high test scores, yeah? So that’s not much of a comparison.

              Finland, well, how do American Finns compare? Again, the numbers are meaningless unless the comparison is apples to apples.

              I’m aware this is not an argument you are making, but if this is all people have to support “AMERICAN EDUCATION SUCKS!” then it’s weak tea.

              1. Finland, well, how do American Finns compare? Again, the numbers are meaningless unless the comparison is apples to apples.

                This is a good point. Minnesotan, the place where people from the Scandinavian cultural heritage overwhelmingly settled, has very high test scores.

                This is sort of similar to people who talk about America’s lower life expectancy. If you compare like to like and look at Americans from a European background, they have very similar life expectancy to people in Europe. Japanese Americans actually have a higher life expectancy than people in Japan, and Japan has the highest life-expectancy on the planet. I think life expectancy is partially genetic (which is why people from Japan have among the highest life expectancies no matter where they live) so just looking at life expectancy is an idiotic way of trying to figure out health outcomes.

        4. Also, Sweden’s period of greatest economic growth occurred in the 50s and 60s, when the Swedes were staunchly pro-free market, had among the lowest tax rates and per capita gov spending in the first world. They were the 4th wealthiest country in the world then. Only after the rise of the welfare state in 60s and 70s did their growth rate start to decline. Today, they are living off the residual success of a former free market economy.

          And of course, the Scandinavian countries haven’t had to assimilate tens of millions of immigrants who arrive with little or no training, education, or money. Not that I object to immigration, but it drags down the numbers, which is what makes the US and Europe apples and oranges.

          Oh, and Norway doesn’t count, they have oil, they’re just Kuwait with bad weather. I’d sooner copy Qatar’s mode of government just because they have such a high per capita GDP.

          1. the Scandinavian countries haven’t had to assimilate tens of millions of immigrants who arrive with little or no training, education, or money.

            So you mean it’s the native Finns and Swedes who are over turning cars, burning tires in the streets, and beating the shit out of Chasidic Jews while chanting “Gaza, Gaza!”?

            Who knew?!?!

            1. The US has taken in many more immigrants (as a fraction of its population) in the past 50 years than any Scandinavian country has. That much should be pretty obvious. This is one reason why the US is more ‘economically unequal’ than S honestly can’t tell if you’re disagreeing with me, or just being irrelevant.

    1. But, the only reason he landed a spacecraft on a comet is because patriarchy. Otherwise it clearly would have been a woman who did it first. We have to erase this from the history books and ban men from science until a woman achieves this feat. I can just imagine it. 2 women working on the never before feat of landing a spacecraft on a comet(well, there was this one dude, but he wore a sexist shirt, so it doesn’t count):

      Wiminz scientista 1: We have to figure out how to land this thingy on that thingy.

      Wiminz scientista 2: Yeah, but do you think these shoes go better with this outfit, or wait.. let me show you these pics of my other shoes I took with my new iPhone.

      Wiminz scientista 1: Do you think that new spacecraft we’re working on looks too masculine?

      Wiminz scientista 2: Hmm, yeah, you have a point, even though we painted it pink and decorated it with floral designs, yeah, let’s scrap that and start over.

      /why there are no female libertarians.

      1. Just needs a “Hello Kitty” sticker.

  9. But, What Do Millenials Think?

    Two New Jersey parents will have to foot the bill for their adult daughter’s college tuition ? even though she hasn’t spoken to them in two years, they claimed.

    Temple University junior Caitlyn Ricci sued her estranged parents for tuition money in 2013. On Thursday, a Camden County judge ordered the divorced couple to cough up $16,000 every year the 21-year-old is enrolled in classes.

    Caitlyn Ricci’s grandparents paid for the lawyer she used to sue their own son, WPVI reported. They said Ricci’s unsupportive parents ? Michael Ricci and Maura McGarvey ? kicked her out of the family home two years ago.

    The divorced couple said they never turned their back on their daughter: Instead, she left her mother’s home, refusing to accept house rules like chores and a curfew, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported.

    1. I wonder if Caitlyn Ricci votes Democrat.

      1. I’m guessing yes, and will continue to do so.

      2. Sounds like a Christie supporter actually

        1. Which is why some are so enthused about Christie. He can capture the youth vote!

          1. One thing Millenials love: corpulence!

            1. I’m corpulent, you fattist!

              RACISM!!!

    2. New Jersey is a horrible place.

      1. Who else but a group of horrible people could give us not only the Jersey Shore, but Chris Christie?

        New Jersey makes California appear sane and civilized by comparison.

        1. I’ve been there several times. The people that are actually from there, most of them are insufferable assholes, and they’re also the worst drivers I have ever seen. And I live in MD.

          1. There is no such thing as a driver worse than a Florida driver.

            1. I disagree. I’m constantly having trouble with the drivers on my computer.

              /terrible joke

        2. Don’t forget these fucks gave us Bon Jovi.

          1. this is a song for the brokenhearted
            who came to shit but only farted

      2. Well, Christie an East Coast Democrat in Republican clothing.

        1. Christie comes from a long line of Eastern conservatism who sell themselves as tough law and order problem solvers who want lower (but not low) taxes and are socially moderate. See Guliani, Rockefeller, etc

          1. See also Kean,

          2. See also Kean,

          3. Do you consider yourself a member of this group, Bo?

  10. (well, there was this one dude, but he wore a sexist shirt, so it doesn’t count)

    Which is why the guys at Mission Control only wore white dress shirts and black ties.

    Space exploration is a No Peacock Zone.

  11. Which is why the guys at Mission Control only wore white dress shirts and black ties.

    Space exploration is a No Peacock Zone.

    You see, this is why there are no space aliens. There are, but when they send out a probe to spy on earth, the see these guys at mission control and think ‘holy fuck, these guys are not going to be any fun at all, I bet that on that planet, they still throw people in cages for smoking herbs. Let’s move on’.

  12. I’m so, so sorry.

    Thomas Frank and Rick Perlstein discuss Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon. It’s like driving past a car accident.

    Because it was kind of seen as old fashioned. [There was] This post-scarcity idea that the economy was taking care of everybody, which it was in the early 1970s. The tragedy was, of course, that this rhetoric sort of beginning to pick up steam just as the economy was becoming increasingly unfair for working people. So you take these two factors and what emerges is a Democratic Party that’s superficially very strong, right, because they do very well in 1974, and of course they win the presidency in 1976. But they become strong at the expense of their historic appeal, which is to be the economic defenders of people seeking to enter and stay in the middle class.

    That’s weird. I was under the impression that the Democrats’ historical appeal was to Southern White Supremacists. The more you know!

    1. If you were only to look at the party over the past decade, you would swear that they’re the party who are trying to turn the USA into the former USSR.

      1. They’ve nationalized credit, health care and insurance as well as car makers, and now are talking national food policy. What’s next, the comic book industry?

    2. defenders of people seeking to enter and stay in the middle class

      I would understand people wanting to ‘stay in the middle class’ rather than fall to the “lower” classes, but how many people would say “I choose not to be wealthy or successful, I only want to be in the middle class, thanks!”

      After you eliminate people who’ve joined the priesthood, etc, how many people really would have as their life’s goal just to be average and middle class? I often wonder why this isn’t called out more often.

  13. They are now building highrise condos (some in NYC I believe) that
    consist of tiny condos. This due to the staggering cost of building
    in the city. But they’re not all that cheap, as I recall.

  14. The decline of American colleges continues apace.

    Forty three students at Dartmouth College have been “implicated in an academic dishonesty case” in an ethics course, student newspaper The Dartmouth reports.

    According to The Dartmouth, the 43 students allegedly skipped class, but got other students to sign in for them and answer questions using an electronic clicker. “Each clicker is registered with one student, who gains points for submitting answers to certain in-class questions,” The Dartmouth reports.

    1. Did those 43 students skip class to go to Mexico?

    2. It’s fairly ironic that they did this in an ethics course.

      Of course, if they’re studying law then this is par for the course.

  15. This book actually looks surprisingly good, given that it’s got essays by P.J. O’Rourke, James Lileks and David “Iowahawk” Burge.

    Unfortunately it’s also got awful country club Republicans like Christopher Buckley and neocons from The Weekly Standard.

    Anyone remember Christopher Buckley’s deep throating of Barack Obama way back when?

    Let me be the latest conservative/libertarian/whatever to leap onto the Barack Obama bandwagon. It’s a good thing my dear old mum and pup are no longer alive. They’d cut off my allowance.

    Or would they? But let’s get that part out of the way. The only reason my vote would be of any interest to anyone is that my last name happens to be Buckley?a name I inherited. So in the event anyone notices or cares, the headline will be: “William F. Buckley’s Son Says He Is Pro-Obama.” I know, I know: It lacks the throw-weight of “Ron Reagan Jr. to Address Democratic Convention,” but it’ll have to do.

    Dear Pup once said to me, “You know, I’ve spent my entire life time separating the Right from the kooks.”

    I declare, this Barack Obama chap is quite well bred and seems to me the most decent sort of fellow. My dear old daddy shall simply have to spin ever so slightly in his grave as I cast the ballot for this gentleman and scholar. Pip pip, cheerio!

    1. The reality distortion field around Obama in 2008 was truly amazing.

      1. Good thing that libertarians weren’t fooled. That would have been embarrassing.

        1. I see what you did there.

    2. I remember that because that’s the last time I gave a shit about Christopher Buckley. Has he done anything since? Exhibited any sense of shame now that Obama has turned out to be exactly the disaster the right said he would be?

      Just curious.

      1. That article is literally everything wrong with East Coast, well-bred croquet Republicans.

        Look at this:

        I’ve read Obama’s books, and they are first-rate. He is that rara avis, the politician who writes his own books. Imagine. He is also a lefty. I am not. I am a small-government conservative who clings tenaciously and old-fashionedly to the idea that one ought to have balanced budgets. On abortion, gay marriage, et al, I’m libertarian. I believe with my sage and epigrammatic friend P.J. O’Rourke that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take it all away.

        But having a first-class temperament and a first-class intellect, President Obama will (I pray, secularly) surely understand that traditional left-politics aren’t going to get us out of this pit we’ve dug for ourselves. If he raises taxes and throws up tariff walls and opens the coffers of the DNC to bribe-money from the special interest groups against whom he has (somewhat disingenuously) railed during the campaign trail, then he will almost certainly reap a whirlwind that will make Katrina look like a balmy summer zephyr.

        Obama has in him?I think, despite his sometimes airy-fairy “We are the people we have been waiting for” silly rhetoric?the potential to be a good, perhaps even great leader. He is, it seems clear enough, what the historical moment seems to be calling for.

        1. Oh.

          So I’m assuming Buckley offed himself because the shame of having said something like that cannot be lived down. Yikes.

          1. Sometimes I wish seppuku was something that more commonly emerged as a concept in societies.

            1. The Cato institute would certainly agree. Look who they’re named after?

        2. Honestly, what was in the water in 2008 that made so many Americans profoundly stupid and oblivious? I don’t know if it was a race thing or his extremely manipulative campaign. Admittedly, in 2008 I thought Obama was just going to be mediocre, not the train wreck he turned into, but the amount of fellatio he got was absurd.

          1. I suppose some of it can be chalked up to eight years of Bush and social signaling as well.

          2. In Buckley’s case he was showing that he was a debonair, well-bred sort of Republican, quite unlike those drooling yokels squatting in fly over-country with their inbred families and their coon hounds.

            Buckley thought Obama was a Harvard man he could sit down with and sip some Chardonnay.

            1. We are perilously close to a cocktail parties meme spontaneously appearing.

          3. Oh, hell. My reaction was pretty much;

            Far Lefty mentors? Check.

            Machine Politics background? Check.

            Won’t release his academic records, even though he’s running on them? Check

            Good hair, nice teeth, ok looking wife? Check.

            Lots of press adulation for writing a Political Memoir, One Each? Check

            Campaign memes parse out as meaning less than nothing? Check.

            Hide the f*cking silver, we’ve got a third generation Kennedy in blackface!

          4. Especially high voting payoff: the psychological benefit of an American voting for a black man and henceforth never having to feel like a racist, offering high-hat condemnation of the war in Iraq (that most Obama voters supported in 2003) and the Bush administration, getting to brag to their friends that they voted for a black man, the joy of projecting glamour onto a political and personal cipher

            Low cost: knowing your individual vote won’t swing the election, and so is simply a trade for a lifetime’s worth of psychological and social benefits (“I voted for Obama!”) for an hour or two of your time.

            Now repeat that times a few million and you have the swing/lazy vote that determined the election. We probably won’t see that unique and disastrous confluence of factors again, as the next AA candidate won’t have Obama’s unique position in history (or his blank-slatedness), no one takes the XX-chromosome victim card so seriously, and white center-lefties are unlikely to be as excited about the first half-Cuban president as they were the first half-African president.

        3. But having a first-class temperament and a first-class intellect, President Obama will (I pray, secularly) surely understand that traditional left-politics aren’t going to get us out of this pit we’ve dug for ourselves. If he raises taxes and throws up tariff walls and opens the coffers of the DNC to bribe-money from the special interest groups against whom he has (somewhat disingenuously) railed during the campaign trail, then he will almost certainly reap a whirlwind that will make Katrina look like a balmy summer zephyr.

          This is a candidate for the most wrong prediction ever written.

      2. I read his fiction book on China, “They Eat Dogs, Don’t They?” awhile back. It was okay.

  16. Glen Larson passed away a couple of days ago.

    I used to watch Magnum P.I. as a kid, then made the mistake of trying to watch it again relatively recently. Nothing kills childhood memories like trying to relive childhood experiences.

    1. Were you a youngster when Magnum P.I. was new?

      1. Yes. Now get off my lawn.

        1. Ha ha! Damn old man. We ain’t bothering nobody!

          1. …hold it just one second here… If you were a youngster when Magnum P.I. was new.. I was something like an entry level middle aged old man…

            Hey!! Get the fuck off my lawn you sassy mouthed little brat!!

  17. my best friend’s mom makes $88 /hour on the computer . She has been unemployed for 7 months but last month her payment was $19659 just working on the computer for a few hours. visit……

    ?????? http://www.payinsider.com

    1. Is she streaming to pornhub?

  18. Before the A-10, the P-47 was the toughest plane in the air:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpM7riFuvzA

    Unbelievable!

    1. The P-47 was indeed tough. I once saw an interview with a P-47 pilot who described the time when German flak shot off at least one cylinder of his engine. The engine kept running (making a hell of a racket) and he made it back to base.

      But it was a repurposed high-altitude fighter. In term of ground attack toughness in WWII, you can’t beat the Ilyushin Il-2, which was something of an ancestor of the A-10.

      1. Yeah, that Ilyushin was like the T-34 of the sky. Hard to believe Central Services was able to produce things like the T-34 and the Ilyushin, but they did.

        1. They were the products of individual designers and design teams, who were allowed by the central planners to do their thing.

  19. In case anyone missed it, here is the most recent example of anti-gun idiocy:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJmFEv6BHM0

  20. I meant to post this on Armistice Day. It’s the ending to the WWI season of Black Adder:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH3-Gt7mgyM

    1. one last “cunning plan” joke. Thanks.

  21. Back to the topic of tiny houses, I spotted that article done in October on CBC http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/…..-1.2788229 as well as this article from the Ottawa Citizen from September 22 http://ottawacitizen.com/life/…..ouse-trend

  22. But having a first-class temperament and a first-class intellect, President Obama will (I pray, secularly) surely understand that traditional left-politics aren’t going to get us out of this pit we’ve dug for ourselves.

    Haha, sucker!

  23. Can’t help but notice most “tiny house” dwellers are tiny people. It’s easy to live in a “matchbox” when you’re one of the wee-folk.

  24. I was kind of worried about the entire thing. I’ve never worked from home, But Yeah, I did just join and all is good.
    so I will post back how it goes!===== ?W?W?W.W?O?R?K?4?H?O?U?R.C?O?M?

  25. my co-worker’s step-aunt makes $63 an hour on the internet . She has been laid off for 8 months but last month her pay was $13071 just working on the internet for a few hours. hop over to here……

    ?????? http://www.payinsider.com

  26. Fuck tiny houses. At least in DC.

    Anything that makes government jobs a pain in the ass is a win in my book. I’m hoping for the day that drawing a government paycheck is punishable by the death penalty.

  27. My buddy’s step-aunt makes $89 every hour on the laptop . She has been without work for 8 months but last month her check was $14034 just working on the laptop for a few hours. check out here. ???? http://www.jobsfish.com

  28. Sadly, the festering penchant for safety in America(useful, in some ways, I agree, but pathologically applied, today) leads to things like BOCA, which is often voted into municipal use by default, when citizens don’t bother to learn how their town functions.
    That said, there has always been a use for miniscule housing and all around the world, tiny houses have been the norm for much of history. The rise of the mansion/villa/castle, with attendants to care for it, led to imitators, especially in this land of “embarrassed millionaires”, until awakened by housing bubbles popping, that is. anyone seen the abandoned wealthy housing tracts out in the southwest? A vague attempt at recreating the “cottages” in places like Newport, Rhode Island, perhaps? Yet, now there is a move afoot to make failure a renunciation, again.
    Houses have been built for thousands of years without any help from bureaucrats, except to make it harder in every pecuniary way imaginable.
    No wonder DC is first on the North Korean “must nuke” list.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.