Drug Legalization

Violent Crime Decreases After San Francisco Stopped Prosecuting Drug Users

|

What happens when the police stop prosecuting drug users? According to San Francisco police chief Greg Suhr, violent crime goes down. 

Reason TV initially published this interview with Suhr on Dec. 2, 2014. Original text below:

An interview with San Francisco police chief Greg Suhr. 

"I'm a narc. I've been a narcotics guy forever," says San Francisco police chief Greg Suhr. "But I'm just telling you, I've always felt bad for the people that were addicted to drugs."

Suhr is following in the footsteps of his predecessor, George Gascon, who is now District Attorney in the city and who began the process of de-emphasizing drug enforcement in the midst of cutbacks to the police force in the wake of the 2007 recession. Since Suhr has taken over, he's disbanded most of the force's narcotics unit, and drug arrests have plummeted by 85 percent. 

Suhr is no fan of drug legalization. He views drug addiction as a serious public health problem, a debatable assertion with its own set of dubious public policy implications, and he looks upon drug dealers with scorn and says they are preying on the sick.

But regardless of the questionable nature of Suhr's underlying logic, San Franciso offers an enticing glimpse at what American cities might begin to look like if drugs were legalized or decriminalized. Suhr's department still makes arrests for drug dealing, but only on a complaint-driven basis. They don't go out of their way to set up stings or raids. And while causation does not equal correlation, Suhr believes that the drop in violent crime since the shift in policy began indicates that his department has its priorities straight. 

"Not trying to just keep a stat game going on arresting people for narcotics has not hurt us in trying to achieve our goal in trying to make San Franciso safest," says Suhr.

Watch the full interview with Suhr above. Scroll down for downloadable links, and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel for daily content like this.
Approximately 3 minutes. Produced by Zach Weissmueller.

NEXT: Harvey Silverglate on 'Ferguson's Unexpected Lessons'

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. Well, I’ll say it again – its almost like most of the violence associated with drugs is due to prohibition.

    1. It might also have something to do with the ‘tolerant’ liberals of SF putting all the black people in Oakland.

      1. I always find it interesting how often people think of Oakland — one of the most diverse cities anywhere — is a “black” town.

        According to the 2010 Census, Oakland is 34% White, 28% African American, 25% Hispanic and 17% Asian.

        Also, if they kept such numbers, I would guess that Oakland has the most predominant lesbian population in the Bay Area. Gay males tend to cluster in San Francisco, while it often seems that the lesbian community is stronger in Oakland.

  2. Don’t you see what he’s done?! He’s legalized drugs!

  3. I wonder how much further crime would go down if they ditched their unconstitutional gun rights infringements.

    1. You know it hit me that if we counted all the unjustified police shootings as ‘crimes’, crime in this country would probably be actually way up.

      1. No it wouldn’t. Police abuses are deplorable, but there aren’t nearly enough police shootings to make up for the 60% drop in crime over the last 20 years.

        1. Sorry, I don’t put /snark tags on my posts.

      2. Also, I haven’t seen any evidence that police abuses and shootings are more common today than they were in the 80’s. It’s just that the internet allows us to hear about a lot of shootings that might have been swept under the rug and gone unreported nationally 30 years ago.

        1. I don’t believe they are, I believe that we just have more pictures so there’s a lot more to question.

          In this vein:

          Officer who punched handcuffed woman so hard he broke her face orbital socket isn’t charged after long paid vacation.

          See? Crime way down.

        2. A Seattle Times review of such cases showed there has been only one federal criminal civil-rights case filed against a law-enforcement officer in recent history in the Western District of Washington ? a 2008 charge against a former King County deputy for kicking and beating a handcuffed woman.

          A jury acquitted the deputy at trial.

          See? Crime way down.

  4. Cincinnati people: one of you said MOTR was good. If you are here let me know 🙂

  5. OT:

    Did you know we live in a culture that hates women:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.c…..women.html

    1. Was that recorded before the shit hit the fan or is that woman actually stupid enough to stand by Erdely today?

    2. Sorry, not giving the indignation industry any clicks.

      1. The link is actually to Real Clear Politics, so if you click on the link you’re giving a legitimate website a hit, rather than MSNBC.

        1. A distinction without a difference.

    3. Wow, this woman is stupid:

      But one thing really stood out to me, which is the statistic about how boys and men in frats are three times more likely to commit sexual violence. But I think as Raul says — you know what, I just used a euphemism there, and I shouldn’t do that. They are three times more likely to commit rape.

      Sexual violence and rape are not synonymous. Even assuming that statistic is true*, it does not show any evidence that they are three times more likely to commit rape, since not all instances of sexual violence are rape.

      *At this point, when a feminist tells me a statistic I disbelieve it until I have multiple more reputable sources corroborate the claim. It seems that every time I dig into feminist statistics I find that they’ve either A) completely invented them, b) there’s enormous conflict of interest in the study they’re citing, or c) it’s from decades ago and there’s no evidence that statistic is still valid.

      For example, the feminist claim that 1/4 college girls will be the victims of rape comes from a shoddy study that was commissioned by Ms. Magazine in 1987. To start with, that creates an enormous conflict of interest since it was commissioned by a feminist magazine, but the statistic also comes from before the 70% decline in rape that started in the early 90’s. Even if the stat were once true, it no longer is.

      1. “, the feminist claim that 1/4 college girls will be the victims of rape comes from a shoddy study that was commissioned by Ms. Magazine in 1987”

        No. Though they might ALSO cite that as ‘supporting’ their more-recent hyped bullshit.

        I spent a month or so going through all the “rape studies” earlier this year. Whether you’re talking ‘campus sexual assault’ or the more-broad (PUN!) claims made.

        The 2 main ‘biggies’ that they like to cite are

        a) the 2010 CDC National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey

        and

        b) the 2007 Campus Sexual Assault study

        When you hear the “1-in-5” or “1-in-4” claims, they are usually referring to one or both of these (they often claim that each is ‘more valid’ because they come to *similar* conclusions – using bad data to reinforce their bad data)

        The simple problem with both are the data collection methods and the definitions

        They both define ‘rape’ as including any sex when ‘incapacitated’. They don’t tell survey respondents this. They ask, ‘have you had sex drunk’? (more or less).

        Any ‘yes’ there is just as good as if you were kidnapped and gangraped by a biker gang.

        Then they have the expanded category of ‘sexual violence‘, which includes (among other things) = “unwanted emails” or “someone making promises about the future they knew were untrue”

        1. Short = they lump so much bullshit into what is defined as “rape” and “sexual assault” that its almost impossible to say anything valid about REAL ‘rape’ or ‘sexual violence’.

          I mean, go figure = the people who claim to have the most interest in preventing this stuff seem to work against themselves by diluting the issue to meaninglessness.

        2. someone making promises about the future they knew were untrue

          Uh oh, I do that with your mom all the time.

          1. “I’m sorry Mrs. Gilmore, I promise to last longer than 3 minutes next time.”

            /Epi making promises he knows to be untrue

            1. “That is rape! That is borderline rape!”

            2. “I’m sorry Mrs. Gilmore, I promise to last longer than 3 minutes next time.”

              Reminds me of a cartoon I saw once:

              First man: When I was young, I was a member of the 4-H club.

              Second man: When I was young, I joined the Mile High Club, but I could never last four hours.

        3. Simple debunking of the CDC study here

          “…where did the CDC find 13.7 million victims of sexual crimes that the professional criminologists had overlooked?

          It found them by defining sexual violence in impossibly elastic ways and then letting the surveyors, rather than subjects, determine what counted as an assault.

          Consider: In a telephone survey with a 30 percent response rate, interviewers did not ask participants whether they had been raped.

          Instead of such straightforward questions, the CDC researchers described a series of sexual encounters and then they determined whether the responses indicated sexual violation. A sample of 9,086 women was asked, for example, “When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, how many people ever had vaginal sex with you?” A majority of the 1.3 million women (61.5 percent) the CDC projected as rape victims in 2010 experienced this sort of “alcohol or drug facilitated penetration.”

          Participants were asked if they had ever had sex because someone pressured them by “telling you lies, making promises about the future they knew were untrue?” All affirmative answers were counted as “sexual violence.”

            1. Its a rape instruction manual. PERSONual.

    4. How does anyone become that twisted?

      But, yes, accusations such as hers do cause me to hate women…women of the batshit crazy feminists variety.

      1. She says, on one point, that boys in our culture are taught to hate women. This is ridiculous in the most basic way. As the mother of two boys – boys who socialize with other boys (and girls) I say it is a completely absurd claim and any person with common sense know this intuitively.

        1. I think the point is that society is teaching them to hate wimmenz, and your couple of hours a day with them can’t overcome the sheer power of the village.

    5. Ha Ha Ha! You almost fooled me, Lady B! I thought for a second that you were referencing the hyperbole of an upper-middle class American feminist, but then I thought that no one could be that out of touch with reality and without clicking on your link, I know that it actually is a quote from a Saudi Arabian human rights activist referring to the deplorable status of women throughout the Islamic world. Right?

      1. Right?

        I know. How shameful is it that feminist ignore real human rights abuses and focus on “rape culture” supposedly effecting the most protected human beings on earth (college students on campus)?

        There’s real danger in protesting female genital mutilation, but why bother with all that when a guest spot on MSNBC is available.

        Moral preeners and hysterics. Also, cowards.

        1. Libertarians are well known for their opposition to female genital mutilation, right?

            1. It seems to be a problem mainly among the libertarian’s favorite race.

              en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Female_genital_mutilation#mediaviewer/ File:FGM_prevalence_UNICEF_2014.svg

              1. libertarian’s [sic]

                In English, when employing the possessive case for a regular plural noun, the apostrophe is placed to the right of the “-s” suffix. Thus, “libertarians'”.

                Learn to speak English or get the fuck out, am I right?

                1. I think it’s interesting that one person showed up saying that we’re calling for white racial suicide and then immediately another person showed up claiming we’re in favor of female genital mutilation.

                  I’m sure these are two different people and not the same person running sockpuppets.

                  Absolutely sure.

                2. Who says’s libertarian is plural? I referred to the libertarian, a singular tense.

                  1. Who says’s libertarian is plural? I referred to the libertarian, a singular tense.

                    The “singular tense”? I..I just can’t.

                3. Learn to speak English or get the fuck out, am I right?

                  Aww, I’s not edumacated enouff for reason. because I abuse my apostophes.

                  /mocking tone

                  Sorry, HM, there are much better reasons to rail at people who are being idiots than their misuse of aporstophes. Why did you pick the most pedantic one?

                  1. Aww, I’s not edumacated enouff for reason. because I abuse my apostophes.

                    Just remember there are qualities in men way more important than proper grammar, like money and a large penis and also, preferable, good teeth.

                    1. Well, two are fixable; one is uncorrectable.

                    2. Yeah, the money and the teeth aren’t the problem.

                    3. 3 for 3! Woot!

                    4. No Playa, she said she wants a guy WITH a big penis, not a guy who IS a big penis.

                    5. I was giving myself 1 point for the bad grammar.

                  2. Apostrophe abuse is worse than what happened at UVA.

                    (For some reason, apostrophe abuse is the one grammar error that really drives me up a wall.)

                    1. Apostrophe abuse is worse than what happened at UVA.

                      Well, it is real.

                  3. Sorry, HM, there are much better reasons to rail at people who are being idiots than their misuse of aporstophes. Why did you pick the most pedantic one?

                    Did you not pick up on the humor of the last line? The dude who would most likely tell someone speaking accented English to “go back to their country” or scream at someone speaking Spanish to his kid at Walmart deserves getting called out for greengrocer’s apostrophes when writing his bigoted screeds.

                  4. “Heroic Mulatto” is certainly the smartest libertarian here. He should ask himself why.

                    1. No. The smartest guy here is probably C. Anacreon. Or maybe Medical Physics Guy. I’m sure Smilin’ Joe Fission and Lynchpin are up there too.

                      Whomever it is, it’s not you.

                    2. What does Lynchpin do? I can’t recall.

                    3. Astrophysics, if I remember correctly.

                    4. I shall remember that for the future. I have many questions.

                    5. Sam Hayson|12.6.14 @ 9:40PM|#
                      “Heroic Mulatto” is certainly the smartest libertarian here. He should ask himself why.”

                      And ‘murkin is among the dumbest shits to show up here.

                    6. And while I’m at it, I’ll say that, you, Sevo, are one of the best-read guys on here. I wish I had the time to read as broadly as you.

                    7. HM, I appreciate that.
                      During the times I was making boku bucks, I made sure most got turned into capital.
                      When I had boku time, I made sure most got turned into study.

                    8. BTW, to be clear, how I’ve made and make a living is hardly ever even discernible from what is posted here. The sources I quote are applicable to the subject, not my occupation.

    6. What was the date of the MSNBC broadcast featuring these pearls of wisdom? Before or after the RS story plunged to a fiery death?

      1. The only women I hate are the ones who won’t bring me a sandwich.

        1. Sammich. Its different. a ‘sandwich’ is more respectable. Wimmin bring men sammiches.

        2. So, all women except those who work at the Carnegie Deli*?

          *There are no women working at the Carnegie Deli (the last time I was there).

          1. I was disappointed by the Carnegie Deli. The corned beef rueben was very dry.

            1. I’m going to make my own pastrami from scratch in a couple of weeks.

              The recipe:
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcabu1v8T4U

            2. Carnegie Deli pretty much sucks

              (mainly for the location, secondly for the service and uneven quality of the chow; only upside = I got my picture taken with jack nicholson there)

              The shizznits is 2nd Avenue Deli* or Sarge’s, just up the street

              Katz’s is still great as ‘cultural fixture’, but for the eats, i think its more convenient when part of a Lower East Side drinking binge; maybe if you have a large party, easier to sit

              I’m more of a pastrami/brisquet fanatic, so can’t speak to the nuances of the corned beef differences, which some people might care more about.

              *”2nd Avenue deli” is actually on 33rd st between 3rd and lex. Dont ask.

              1. Roxy’s Diner in Fremont here in Seattle makes their own pastrami and it’s killer, and is a nice way to get a taste of NYC here. Their pastrami Reuben is so juicy and fatty it’s amazing. Ok now I’m getting hungry. And I was just near there earlier.

                1. Watch the video. I bought a smoker oven because of it.

                  1. There is something called “Montreal Smoked Meat” that is very similar to pastrami or smoked corn beef. I ate a lot of it up in Superior/Duluth this Summer.

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M…..moked_meat

                    1. Nice wiki entry:
                      “Montreal smoked meat or simply smoked meat in Montreal…”

                      Mexican rice, or simply rice in Mexico…..

                    2. Some good shit. I’d prefer a darker Scandinavian-style rye though. The basic sandwich was 2″ + (more for $2 extra) of meat on rye with mustard but it was available as a reuben, and my favorite, reuben-config with a fried egg cooked to order. I went with “over easy”.

                    3. The stuff I had was dry-cured in-house. I think of it as corned beef because of the sauer kraut, Swiss and 1000 island version available

                      It was dry-cured before smoking.

                  2. Yes, thank you. I just pulled the trigger on a slickdeals masterbuilt a few days ago. If I only had a sous vide!

  6. In other news, white students should commit race suicide.

    http://absolute-news.com/2014/…..e-suicide/

    1. “There’s still a slender minority of white folks, a very slender, but a slender minority of white folks, that are ready to commit race suicide,” Rickford told the audience, near the end of his remarks. “Which is to say, they are ready to reject corrupt skin privileges. They’re ready to perform treason to whiteness, as an expression of their loyalty to humanity.”

      I had a feeling this is what he really meant. “Race suicide” being a euphemism for rejectness of your whiteness. You know, like Vanilla Ice tried to do.

      This… is how you reject yo whiteness.

    2. Do libertarians disagree with what he says or just the way he says it. Seems to me like libertarians are fine with race suicide.

      1. Shut the fuck up, American.

        1. Or do libertarians believe in the preservation of the White race? Sorry if I misunderstood you guys.

          1. Or do libertarians believe in the preservation of the White race?

            Hell no, have you seen what happens when you mix the races. People (women) get beautiful!

            1. Indeed. Even Jews admit that Nordic women are the most beautiful.

              1. Nordic women who are half black sprinkled with some Latino and Asian?

                I’m with ya brother.

                    1. Don’t even get me started on Brazil, a country filled with sickening mongrelized half-breeds, quite hideous compared to the pure-blooded Caucasian.

                      I just realized these posts are going to look very odd when American gets banned and all his posts get deleted. As a result, to anyone in the future, I’m arguing with a racist.

                    2. These chat boards are cool. Spew racist shit in one end; get beautiful women out the other.

                  1. Leopard bikini?

                    Racist.

                    1. Leopard bikini?

                      That, hilariously enough, is a zebra print.

                    2. Zebra print? She really needs to run it through the laundry.

                1. My wife is half Irish, half Persian Jew. She has 4 sisters. They are all ridiculously good looking. Even the fat one is pretty.

                  1. It is true that Persian Jews are beautiful.

                  2. My wife is half Irish, half Persian Jew.

                    It’s the Persian half. I dated a half Palestinian girl who was crazy hot. I mean hot, but crazy. Which made her hotter.

                    1. My wife is half Syrian on her moms side. All her cousins are drop dead gorgeous.

                    2. Sam Hayson|12.6.14 @ 8:44PM
                      preservation of race is a basic human instinct.

                      Sam Hayson|12.6.14 @ 8:49PM|
                      It is true that Persian Jews are beautiful.

                      Rassenschande! Blutschande!

                2. Think of the Black women “anti-racists” point to as examples of Black beauty. Most have a significant amount of White blood.

                  1. Amazing how you can type such long sentences with only one hand.

                  2. Think of the Black women “anti-racists” point to as examples of Black beauty. Most have a significant amount of White blood.

                    Great point. Look at this hot piece of pure-blooded caucasian ass.

                    Look at this disgusting black woman. Ew.

                    1. What’s the only thing Black people and libertarians have in common?

                      The class of White woman they are capable of attracting.

                    2. The class of White woman they are capable of attracting.

                      So good.

                      Mr. Haysom, provided you aren’t actually Mary, what percentage of your porn viewing involves a dweeby, minimally-endowed, white dude spying on his tiny white girlfriend while she gets railed by big-dicked black dude?

                      I’m betting more than 87%, but not quite 100%. How close am I?

                    3. The class of White woman they are capable of attracting.

                      You know why you’re so obsessed with this? Because it eludes you. Only somebody who’s never had a taste thinks like this.

                    4. It’s American. He’s also the one who proclaimed that women are the property of their husbands.

                      Be nice to him though. His cousin Lucy Mae gave him a handy under the table at Thanksgiving in 1992, so he’s had a taste at least once.

                    5. Only somebody who’s never had a taste thinks like this.

                      I just wish he would hurry up and get to the part where he stabs his Asian roommates to death before going on a slightly-attractive White girl shooting spree before he killing himself.

                    6. he killing himself

                      LOL mr grammar nazi.

                      And that guy was half Asian, I’m sure you’re aware.

                    7. LOL mr grammar nazi.

                      Considering that, from you, Nazi is a complement. I thank you, good sir.

                    8. As if I personally invented the myth of the libertarian loner, LOL.

          2. Or do libertarians believe in the preservation of the White race?

            Do you mean “preservation” as in gathering the population and forcing them to live in nature preserves or as in using different techniques to prevent the growth of microorganisms and the oxidation of fats.

            Either way, I’m fine with it.

            1. forcing them to live in nature preserves

              Wouldn’t that require keeping people like you out?

              1. I’ll be happy to hunt you on safari.

              2. Wouldn’t that require keeping people like you out?

                Who, college professors?

                1. I was thinking of blacks but most college professors would not be welcome either.

                  1. Sucks to be you. Sorry dude, condolences.

            2. Come get your salted, pickled and jellied white people. Your favorite ethnic group now lasts for decades without refrigeration!

              Now you too can make Angloscuitto sandwiches, Angloberry pie and the ever delicious split pea and Anglo soup even during the off season.

              We even have an organic line raised vegan for those who want to pay more for an inferior product.

              1. I find it amusing that for all his brandy-sipping, turtleneck and tweed sportcoat wearing pretension, his arguments are no more sophisticated than “remove kebab, remove kebab“.

                1. People like him can’t afford brandy.

                  P.S. I like kebabs.

                2. The preservation of one’s race has never required complicated arguments, preservation of race is a basic human instinct.

                  1. preservation of race is a basic human instinct

                    No, it isn’t. It is the last refuge of a loser who has nothing in his life, and needs to feel like he’s a part of something.

                    1. Just look at Israel and how they react to racial aliens.

                    2. Just look at Israel and how they react to racial aliens.

                      You mean load them up on an airplane and fly them to Israel at no cost?

                      What a group of mensches! Fills me with such naches, it does!

                    3. Those people, while not ethnically Jewish were at least religiously Jewish. Look how they treat the non-Jewish Blacks.

                    4. Sam Hayson|12.6.14 @ 9:32PM|#
                      “Those people, while not ethnically Jewish were at least religiously Jewish. Look how they treat the non-Jewish Blacks.”

                      Gee, ‘murkin, why don’t you tell us?

                    5. He won’t. The game is to exhaust us through fallacies of equivocation, reification, false analogy, faulty generalization, and overwhelming exception.

                    6. Well, the Blacks there are always complaining about “racism” and their “rights.” Of course because it’s Israel, it must all be lies.

                  2. preservation of race is a basic human instinct.

                    That isn’t true, as the data represented through this chart of Y-DNA haplogroups shows.

              2. SJWs, come visit our White Preserve Game Park! Where we keep this endangered species safe from over-hunting! For a fee, you will get to hunt, shoot, gut, clean and cook a white person, or bring him or her home as a pet. If you notice that our park looks like a golf course, it’s because we want to keep our white people in what approximates to their natural environment. We feed them brie or moon pies twice a day (depending on what subgroup of white people they belong to) and by this means we keep them well-fed and their skin shiny.

          3. It’s a false choice, asshole.

  7. I’ve been a narcotics guy forever

    The jokes just write themselves here.

    1. Reminds me of my old job in medical where they had a job opening for a Substance Abuse Advocate.

      After I pointed out the humour in that, the manager never saw the title the same way again.

      1. We just had a high profile incident here. An alcohol/substance abuse counselor was pinching the hooch on the job. She drove home from work drunk, hit a pedestrian, and drove around with him embedded in her windshield for 5 miles.

        1. pinching the hooch on the job.

          WAR ON WIMMEN!

          Oh, LIQUOR.

          She drove home from work drunk, hit a pedestrian, and drove around with him embedded in her windshield for 5 miles.

          Uh, that’s not pinching the hooch. That’s… chugging the jug… or, gulping the lightning…

        2. I guess I have to ask, did she drive with the victim in the windshield for five miles because she was waiting for her union rep to call back?

          1. That was my first thought too. But she went to jail, so she couldn’t have been part of a public sector union.

            1. 55 years to life:
              http://www.dailybreeze.com/gen…..windshield

              1. Wowww. she even LOOKS like your classic substance abuse advocate.

                She’s even wearing what my ex-wife called “social work clothes”.

                1. *whispers*
                  I think it’s Mary

                  1. dude, this article is a social work GOLDMINE!

                    Wilkins testified during the trial that her drug addiction began when she was in a car accident at age 15 and suffered a broken back and shattered bones in her ankles and legs. She said she started using heroin when it became “cheaper than going to the doctor.”,

                    Is she… is she making a veiled pitch for single-payer? None of this is her fault! If we had single-payer, none of this would have happened!

              2. Wilkins, who was a drug addict before she became a drug and alcohol counselor, contended she wasn’t drunk that night. She claimed she was “self-medicating” while waiting for knee-replacement surgery and had consumed three single-serving bottles of vodka and a can of Budweiser beer and Clamato before starting to drive.

                Holy mother of… she even uses the LINGO!

                1. I think that if I got stopped on the freeway with a margarita in the cup holder, I’d drop some lingo too.

  8. Another front in the War on Women. Lena Dunham in her memoir accuses of guy named “Barry” of raping her. It seems that people have linked this “Barry” to an actual human being who is now, shall we say, suffering in his reputation.

    He’s raising funds to go after Dunham and her publisher.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-H…..na-dunham/

    1. I hope he takes every penny that disgusting pig has. (Assuming she’s lying, which it sounds like she is.)

      1. I believe her when she said she molested her sister.

  9. Seems to me like libertarians are fine with race suicide.

    I can think of worse things than the self-immolation of collectivism.

  10. Funny story. There’s a regular commenter “Sam Haysom” and then there’s RACE SUICIDE “Sam Hayson

    Haysom sample quote:

    It has a lot more to do with the salafist having not had time to concentrate on Malaysia yet. None of the so called secular, stable Islamic republics have survived contact with widespread salafist proselytization without experiencing a profound politicization of Islamic piety. The entire Attaturk legacy is about 80 percent destroyed. It will not survive longer than two decades. Malaysia is already home to a surprising level of anti-semtism due to Soros’s bet against their currency. Safalism will likely run rampant once given a chance.

    Hayson

    Or do libertarians believe in the preservation of the White race? Sorry if I misunderstood you guys.

    DO NOT BE LEAD ASTRY

      1. Don’t be hurtful, Paul.. You know I meant astray.

      2. The Astros are in the lead?

        1. Not you too GILMORE!

          *runs from room sobbing*

    1. This is not true. Just look at Turkmenistan.

    2. Lead astray…right? Like a ricochet?

      Or do you mean led astray?

      Ok, I am confused.

  11. Awaiting contributions from jesse.in.nb, lrish, and HeroicMulatto any moment now.

    1. I’m “Lonely Adorphan” on the banner…

      1. I was playing off the Haysom/Hayson thing.

        1. Ooohh. I thought the nb was a typo, and didn’t notice the missing space or the L at the start of Irish.

          Well played FSJ. Your joke was too clever for my slow self.

          1. What did I tell you about mocking my dyslexia?

            1. I don’t know. I can’t actually read.

              1. This is why I thought Ted S.’s blog was about Just Incest

    2. I can’t decide decide what nom de wallet to use.

      Here is the short list:

      1. STEVE SMITH AROOO!

      2. Mark Ames, child rapist

      3. Circumcised deep dish mayo

      4. Gay Mexican millenial pothead

      5. Somalia

      1. Oh come now, dude. The answer is simple: YOUR MOM

          1. You wanna get high?

      2. Number 2 cannot be repeated enough.

      3. I also failed to notice I wrote something twice twice. Why does that keep happening happening?

        OH MY GOD- the squirrels have hijacked my brain!

      4. 6. Latter Day Ain’t

      5. Cleveland Browns Pallbearer

  12. Variety is the spice of life. Here is some socon derp:

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

    1. Wow, the dude from Limp Bizkit got fat!

    2. Most Christian apologists are smart enough to avoid basing their arguments on logical fallacies.

      This guy does not know even what they are.

    3. What’s with the “Screaming Informercial” rhetorical style?

  13. UVa student journalist is frustrated that the Rolling Stone rape allegations turn out not to be, in the strict sense, true.

    “There was something in that story which stuck. And that means something….

    “For 17 days, we by and large believed Jackie’s story, maintaining only a few fragments of doubt….We were slightly apprehensive at the article’s claim the rape had taken place as part of pledging, noting that pledging takes place in the spring and not the fall. But on the whole, we did not question Jackie herself. And that’s because, when we sorted through Erdely’s snide tone and some small missteps, we found something in that article that struck a chord with us….

    “Ultimately, though, from where I sit in Charlottesville, to let fact checking define the narrative would be a huge mistake….

    “With the crux of the story now wholly in doubt, this progress is threatened. Where we had the opportunity to move 20 steps forward, I fear we will be pushed 20 steps back….

    “Yes, the story was sensational. But even the most sensational story, it seems, can contain frightening elements of truth.”

    http://www.politico.com/magazi…..IO9LDHF9K1

    1. “Ultimately, though, from where I sit in Charlottesville, to let fact checking define the narrative would be a huge mistake….”

      This is a college student?
      I’m sorry to rad that.

    2. The University of Virginia ? like most American universities ? has a problem with rape. Current estimates, cited earlier this year by Vice President Joe Biden, hold that one in five women will be sexually assaulted while in college. That means that in my 200-person politics lecture, roughly a full row will be filled with survivors. In my 20-person major seminar, there are at least two. That is not a calculus I should have to work out in the margins of my Marx-Engels reader.

      What does it say that we read an article in which an 18-year-old girl was pinned down, graphically violated by multiple people in a house we pass almost every day ? and we thought, “That just may be right?”

      Mostly it says you’re an idiot since so many people spotted it as a fake immediately.

      1. “That is not a calculus I should have to work out in the margins of my Marx-Engels reader.”

        Ha, ha, I missed that one.

  14. While we’re on the subject:

    http://pando.com/2014/07/24/as…..ial-issue/

    1. Why are you hating on Reason if they’re a bunch of nazis?

      1. Reason rebuttal:

        https://reason.com/blog/2014/07…..locaust-de

        And the dirt on Mark Ames, as gathered from reading his own writings:

        http://fredrikdeboer.com/2014/…..nswer-for/

        1. Mark Ames is certainly a contemptible individual, but the holocaust denial thing stands on it’s own. That rebuttal doesn’t really bother to deny the charges.

          He has posted the entire issue, which I had not read before, online here (an incomplete online archive of Reason’s run can be found here at the invaluable Unz.org site, which compiles hundreds of titles; we hope eventually to produce our own fully searchable, complete archive at our own site). Ames is correct that some of the contributors to that issue developed an interest in or were fellow travelers with that most pathetic area of study known as Holocaust revisionism or denialism. That scurrilous topic is not the focus of any of the articles in the issue, but the inclusion of contributors such as James J. Martin, who would go on to join the editorial board of the contemptible denialist outfit the Institute of Historical Review, is embarrassing. Another of that issue’s contributors, Gary North, would later be excoriated in this 1998 Reason article for arguing in favor of violent theocracy and the stoning of gays and others.

          1. Ames was trying to spew ink to conceal the fact that his initial charge had been refuted:

            “Throughout its first two decades, in the 1970s and 1980s, Reason supported apartheid South Africa, and attacked anti-apartheid protesters and sanctions right up to Nelson Mandela’s release, when they finally dropped it.”

            In fact, they ran articles by a guy who seemed sympathetic to the SA govt in some respects, and numerous other articles against apartheid, so Ames then backpedaled and said what he *really* meant was to object to the specific articles he quoted, and that he never meant to deny the anti-apartheid articles’ existence.

            1. Here’s where he printed the original charge:

              http://pando.com/2014/07/18/ho…..-cesspool/

          2. Sam Hayson|12.6.14 @ 10:06PM|#
            …”That rebuttal doesn’t really bother to deny the charges.”

            Here is the charge:
            “After I exposed Reason’s history as a publisher of racist, pro-apartheid South Africa articles during the 1970s,”
            And our current lying piece of shit claims that charge was not denied.
            So, ignoramus, liar, both?

            1. The charge wasn’t denied, Gillespe only pointed out that the magazine also published anti-apartheid articles, so that nullifies the effect of the pro-apartheid articles. Somehow I don’t think that argument would fly in most lefty circles.

              1. The original charge was –

                “Throughout its first two decades, in the 1970s and 1980s, Reason supported apartheid South Africa, and attacked anti-apartheid protesters and sanctions right up to Nelson Mandela’s release, when they finally dropped it.”

                and

                “for Reason, apartheid was the only thing safeguarding “liberty.””

                Rebuttal here:

                https://reason.com/blog/2014/07…..conspiracy

                1. Again, this is based on logic that reason magazine would never apply to if it were said by people like….me.

                  Throughout this article I have remained uncritical of the apartheid situation and this may leave me open to some severe criticism from other libertarians. I consider myself to be in the position of someone who has to choose between a more severe or a less severe dictatorship. The dictatorship in this instance is unlimited majority rule. The less severe dictator is a group of 4 million mostly educated people. The more severe dictator is a group of 16 million, mostly ignorant people

                  At root, he is saying he prefers apartheid to majority rule although neither would be ideal.

                  1. First, you claim this charge: “After I exposed Reason’s history as a publisher of racist, pro-apartheid South Africa articles during the 1970s,” is valid.

                    You then provide a quote from the issue and point out:
                    “At root, he is saying he prefers apartheid to majority rule although neither would be ideal.”

                    But you still claim the charge is valid?
                    Who are you and what did you do with Mary?

                    1. Depends on the definition of words like “support.” If you say that apartheid is better than letting Blacks vote, is that support? Opinions differ.

              2. Sam Hayson|12.6.14 @ 10:16PM|#
                “The charge wasn’t denied,”
                The charge was disproven, asshole.

          3. Ames is correct that some of the contributors to that issue developed an interest in or were fellow travelers with that most pathetic area of study known as Holocaust revisionism or denialism. That scurrilous topic is not the focus of any of the articles in the issue, but the inclusion of contributors such as James J. Martin, who would go on to join the editorial board of the contemptible denialist outfit the Institute of Historical Review, is embarrassing.

            So none of the articles were actually based on Holocaust denial, they were just written by people who wrote Holocaust denial works for other publications at a later date. That scarcely makes it a Holocaust denial issue.

            What I don’t understand is why this matters. It was a magazine from 1976. No one currently involved with the magazine in any capacity was working at that time. They’re basically arguing that Reason is tarred forever by one magazine from 40 years ago.

            I can go back to the 70’s and find you an awful lot of left-wingers denying the existence of the Holodomor and supporting the Soviet Union. That doesn’t tar the modern left, though, unless the modern left supports the same ideas.

            1. “They’re basically arguing that Reason is tarred forever by one magazine from 40 years ago.”

              They are arguing not nearly as honestly as that.
              They are arguing as you mention, that a couple of the writers *later* wrote something.
              So guilt by post-association, you might say. My goodness, how could you ever deny a charge that someone you dealt with later made an ass of himself?

    2. Who could have predicted that an admitted child rapist would also be a shameless liar?

      I’m shocked, shocked I tell you!

      1. Mark Ames also actively supported Russian fascists, which makes me question where his sudden sense of moral superiority comes from.

        1. which makes me question where his sudden sense of moral superiority comes from.

          Pat Condell doesn’t.

    3. From the link:
      “After I exposed Reason’s history as a publisher of racist, pro-apartheid South Africa articles during the 1970s,”

      And, of course, “exposed” means lied about it, so you know where it’s going from there.
      And then the money quote form the cartoon is a comment comparing the Nazis and the Commies, correctly noting the Commies are far worse.
      Beginning to think this ain’t our old racist buddy ‘murkin, just the slimy head case Mary.

  15. from where I sit in Charlottesville, to let fact checking define the narrative would be a huge mistake….

    That story was so unbelievable, it had to be true!

    1. It’s such a shame that Jackie wasn’t violently gang raped in order to further the narrative.

    2. Why don’t lawyers sponsor frat parties? If 20% of college women experience sexual assault, then a place like UVA would have something like 500 sexual assaults every year. If half of these were litigated every year, and half of these were settled or won in court, and the average damages were around $100,000 per case, there would be tens of millions to be made litigating sexual assault on college campuses. In which case, you would see attorneys advertising on campus like they do on day time TV and urban bus stops. Either no lawyer has ever thought of profiting on human misery on a college campus, or the volume of trade just isn’t there.

  16. I just saw a snippet in on the local news of a “die in” to protest the recent police brutality.

    EVERY SINGLE “protester” that was laying in the street was taking a selfie. Every single one. It was a sea of camera phones.

    1. Are you suggesting the protesters were more interested in feeling good about themselves rather than doing anything?

      HOW DARE YOU!

      1. Signaling? Nah…

  17. That is not a calculus I should have to work out in the margins of my Marx-Engels reader.

    Signs you may be a credulous dimwit….

    1. I would recommend all re-watch this:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLqHv0xgOlc

      It is the Bezmenov video in case you don’t care to, but one cannot overstate just how right he was.

  18. The rolling stone rape story was published on Nov 19th. Does anyone know any case of libertarian questioning the story before nov 29th? Unless you can produce evidence of this, shut up about the “I told you so.”

    1. How dare we not rush to judgement, and instead engage in dispassionate and in-depth analysis!

      1. dispassionate and in-depth analysis

        Example. Before Nov 29th.

        1. I like how you skipped past the whole “not rush to judgement” part. Here’s a newsflash, not everyone in the world suffers from ADHD, like you.

          1. Whoa, that’s not nice.

            1. Sorry. The marching morons are getting my dander up tonight.

              1. The commenters all challenged it on Robbie’s 1st post on 11/25. The one where he referred sympathetically to Jackie’s “unbelievable ordeal” before the segue off to a libertarian policy-feint of lowering the drinking age. That was a pretty clear signal.Later Reason was the first “real journalism” place any challenge showed up.

        2. Other than all the quotes I posted below from people in this very comment’s section?

          1. Well, that doesn’t “deny” the charge!

    2. The rolling stone rape story was published on Nov 19th. Does anyone know any case of libertarian questioning the story before nov 29th? Unless you can produce evidence of this, shut up about the “I told you so.”

      Does skepticism in the comments section of this very website count?

      Here’s more skepticism.

      No one was willing at first to flat out say ‘this definitely didn’t happen’ but people here were saying that the story seemed shady within a day or two of the accusations.

      Furthermore, Soave was one of the first relatively prominent people to talk about the fact that it may be a hoax, and he was called a rape apologist and an idiot for his troubles.

      So even though he didn’t figure out the story was shady as early as many people in the comments, he was still relatively near the forefront.

      Plus, given that people in the comments section started questioning it immediately, we are definitely some of the few people (along with Steve Sailer, Richard Bradley and some others) who can say ‘we told you so.’

      1. Here’s just one comment if you don’t want to follow the links:

        I went and read the Rolling Stone article, and I give it at least a 50% chance of the rape allegations having been entirely fabricated. Something about it seems off. It is WAY over the top. The allegations are basically that a group of frat boys lured a freshman woman into their party, then lured her to an upstairs room and gang-raped her as part of a group “initiation” of some sort.

        This wasn’t an allegation about a bunch of drunk guys spontaneously raping her. It’s an elaborate, deliberate planned assault. Her supposed “boyfriend” is the one who leads her into a darkened room where she is immediately assaulted. It had to have been planned in advance.

        I just, frankly, do not buy that a bunch of frat boys, as bad as they may be, are going to deliberately orchestrate a gang-rape, knowing that any single one of them could turn all of the others into the cops at any time.

        The story sounds to me like, first of all, the plot of a cheap TV movie, and secondly, just the kind of dramatization that a girl with some serious mental problems might invent. It doesn’t sound like a REAL rape. It sounds like someone’s imaginary rendition of what a gang-rape would be like, based on some very exaggerated ideas about what how frat boys are likely to act.

      2. Soave was one of the first relatively prominent people to talk about the fact that it may be a hoax

        Not before Nov 29th.

        1. So you’re just going to ignore the point that a large number of the people in the comments thought the story was a hoax?

          Here was your question:

          Does anyone know any case of libertarian questioning the story before nov 29th?

          And libertarian seems to count the Hazel Meade quote I posted above or this from Brooks:

          “Squeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaal laahk a peeeeg!!!!”

          Unbelievable is putting it mildly. But for people who think we’re one snowstorm/hurricane/power failure/NBA championship from Lord of the Flies, that story is just another leafy branch on the disaster porn tree.

          Also, I have it on good authority (I saw that movie!) that college English professors use marijuana to get earnest doe-eyed college girls to fuck them while their boyfriends are away on binge drinking road trips.

          *wanders off muttering about ripping bodices*

          Both published November 26th. There are also a host of posts in the November 25th article that either a) flatly call it a hoax or b) express grave reservations.

          So yes, I do know of libertarians questioning the story before Nov. 29th. The very people you’re talking to.

          1. I was implicitly referring to actual libertarian writers and intellectuals, the one’s who write under their real names and have reputations to worry about.

            1. No, you weren’t. You said WE shouldn’t be allowed to say ‘I told you so.’ But since many of us called it before the media caught up, we are exactly the sort of people who should be allowed to say ‘I told you so.’

              I’m confused why you think people in the comments can’t gloat just because none of the actual writers for this website realized it was fake before November 29th. Am I not allowed to gloat when I get something right just because Nick Gillespie was a few days behind me? Is my gloating somehow dependent on the actions of Robby Soave?

              I don’t know what makes you think that the people who got this right shouldn’t be allowed to mention how obviously fake it was just because other writers were days behind them.

              1. “I’m confused why you think people in the comments can’t gloat just because none of the actual writers for this website realized it was fake before November 29th.”

                Because he’s a TEAM-something cocksucker who thinks one’s group-affiliations trump everything?

                1. I’d bet a years pay Robbie, like any other rational literate human being who didn’t just fall off a tampon truck, knew it was a total fabrication upon first reading.

                2. Because he’s a TEAM-something cocksucker who thinks one’s group-affiliations trump everything?

                  I just love that this idiot rolled in her, smugly asked if anyone had questioned this before November 29th (as if he already knew the answer) and then completely moved the goalposts once I pointed out that this entire comment’s section was skeptical on the 25th.

                  He then goes on to argue that we’re not allowed to gloat based on our own skepticism, because there aren’t any major libertarian journalists who agreed with us. Got that? We can’t feel proud of being right because people utterly unrelated to us weren’t right at the same time.

                  Logic!

            2. J E Martin|12.6.14 @ 10:51PM|#
              “I was implicitly referring to actual libertarian writers and intellectuals,”…

              PUSH those goal posts! We know you can do it!
              Push! Push! Push!
              And fuck off.

            3. “actual libertarian writers and intellectuals”

              Oh.

              Well, we have one. His name is Bo. Maybe you two should go talk.

              1. “Well, we have one. His name is Bo.”

                If there was a god, s/he would have saved us.

              2. “actual libertarian writers and intellectuals”

                Oh.

                Well, we have one. His name is Bo. Maybe you two should go talk.

                You bastard GILMORE, it’s too early on a sunday for me to be laughing.

      3. Just for the record: I was the first* to say the gang rape was bullshit here when the story was first posted in a thread.

        *Or second, can’t remember

    3. “shut up about the “I told you so.””

      – where is anyone saying ‘i told you so?

      As far as ‘libertarian questioning the story before nov 29th’ –

      why does it matter, again? There was plenty of skepticism in the comments whenever the story came up… which there wasn’t much reason to. at all. Robby wrote this piece and most people lit into him for blindly assuming that there was any “Rape Culture” evidence at all.

      He then wrote his ‘skeptical’ piece after the WaPo and Bradley questions started getting discussed.

      Why do you care who ‘said it first’? The audience here follows the “Rape Culture” thread and generally think its a contrived bunch of horseshit. Evidence of which i provided some links to way above.

      1. Plus, as I said, even though Soave didn’t get with the program until December 1st, people in the comments were asking questions as early as the day after the article was published.

        As a result, people like Hazel Meade, Brooks, and SIV were calling it as a hoax within 24 hours. If there’s one place we can say ‘I told you so’ it is in this comments section.

    4. The Ballad of JE Martin

      The rolling stone rape story was published on Nov 19th. Does anyone know any case of libertarian questioning the story before nov 29th? Unless you can produce evidence of this, shut up about the “I told you so.”

      [At which time, Irish provides multiple quotes from people in this comment’s section, with links to people being skeptical. Irish also mentions that Soave was one of the first people to flat out say it might be a ‘gigantic hoax,’ even though that was December 1st.]

      JE Martin ignores the point, and says the following:

      Soave was one of the first relatively prominent people to talk about the fact that it may be a hoax

      Not before Nov 29th.

      Ignoring arguments and pretending evidence and links were never presented. It’s the JE Martin way!

    5. I questioned the entire story when I read it, whenever the fuck that was.

    6. Jasmine Kohen noted it on nov 27th, although probably most people here would not consider her a libertarian due to her racial views.

  19. Does anyone know any case of libertarian questioning the story before nov 29th?

    I’m sure I don’t count, but I “questioned” that story as I was reading it. “Unbelievable” doesn’t do it justice.

  20. Why it probably can’t hurt, at the same time, how do we know that it’s the cause, and not say, the skyrocketing housing costs in SF over the last few years?

    Seems likely to me that the people who are likely to get arrested for violent crime (much less convicted) can no longer afford to live in SF.

  21. Before Nov 29th.

    Why does this matter to you? Are you going to accuse us of jumping on a bandwagon? Of copying somebody else’s homework?

    1. jumping on a bandwagon

      Pretty much.

      1. Out of curiosity, do the cool kids still pretend that the rape still happened? cause, like, its less popular?

        YOU LIBERFAGGIANS ARENT COOL BECAUSE YOU JUST USED BRADLEYS PIECE TO MAKE THE SAME POINT SO NYAH NYAH!

        JE Martin makes such a great point. we should be ashamed.

        1. “we should be ashamed.”

          Naah. JE Martin is an ignorant troll.

      2. J E Martin|12.6.14 @ 10:52PM|#

        FWIW =

        I personally give the most credit for ‘outing’ the problems with the RS story to Slate, when they did THIS interview, and it turned out that Erdley ducked questions about her attempts to even identify/contact the accused.

        I don’t like Slate feminists much, but i think they did the honest thing and called it like it was a few days later. Yes, they didn’t “get it out first” even though they were ahead of Bradley on finding actual problems…

        …which goes back to my original question, asshat =

        Who cares?

      3. Steve Sailer was was trying to act like he was “First”. I don’t know why because his timeline put himself behind half the Y-chromosome internet that read and commented on the p[piece.

        1. As I indicated above, Mr Soave clearly signaled the RS story was total bs in his 1st post, even before Dick Blow’s blog entry (the only under-his-own-name journo to post first, afaik). That is quite obvious in retrospect.

        2. Steve Sailer was was trying to act like he was “First”. I don’t know why because his timeline put himself behind half the Y-chromosome internet that read and commented on the p[piece.

          I’m convinced this JE Martin must be a Sailer fan boy. We’ve been getting them periodically the last two days because they come here to whine about how poor, put-upon Steve hasn’t gotten his proper due for ‘discovering’ the story was false.

          That’s also why Martin keeps harping on that November 29th date – that was the date Sailer linked to Bradley’s piece where Bradley expressed doubt.

          Either way it’s irrelevant since a ton of bloggers had noted discrepancies. I don’t know why who got there ‘first’ is relevant, but apparently to dweebs like Steve Sailer fans, it’s incredibly important.

        3. It does strike me as suspicious that the very day that Steve Sailer mentioned about the issue on his blog was when the MSM started to look skeptically on the story. It gives credence to his theory that MSM figures secretly read his blog.

          1. I personally think Sailer brought notice to the Bradley piece and then the Bradley piece went viral. It would be very easy for MSM writers to see other people posting and talking about the article without having ever read it on Sailer’s blog.

            Also, the 27th is when Slate had their interview with Erdley which raised a host of questions (such as why she didn’t talk to the accused) and that conversation led to a bunch of stories about the issue in the next few days.

            There were many things going on at the same time, so it’s very difficult to trace causation.

            1. “There were many things going on at the same time, so it’s very difficult to trace causation.”

              Nor does it matter much.
              The story was floated, amid a certain social climate accepting of claims of victimhood.
              It continued its buoyancy for a short period of time until someone held their nose from the stink. Others then noticed.
              At best, JE Martin is only pointing out that self-proclaimed “victims” get initial preferential treatment, even here; no one wants to beat on anyone who is a victim.
              Fortunately, that treatment is subject to skeptical examination sooner or later.

            2. I personally think Sailer brought notice to the Bradley piece and then the Bradley piece went viral.

              Did the Bradley piece go viral before it started being linked by mainstream articles? I didn’t see it mentioned anywhere outside the “Steveosphere.”

            3. “Irish|12.7.14 @ 12:24AM|#

              I personally think Sailer brought notice to the Bradley piece and then the Bradley piece went viral.”

              Bradley’s piece was ‘opening the door’ but didn’t actually provide any new information.

              bradley’s initial (nov 24th) piece was at the time 100% speculation.

              He noted all the same shit that we did before it became ‘questioned’; it *sounded* too contrived. He didn’t have any extra information.

              While he was making his ‘editorial guesses’, the Slate interview with Edley happened Nov27th; that let the cat out of the bag that Edley was bluffing about having identified/contacted the accused

              it was not a case where any one person ‘broke’ a story = it happened on parallel tracks

              And Steve Sailer – in his comments @ bradley’s blog – was not even particularly sceptical, so much as interested in the ‘race’ angle (natch)

              Steve Sailer
              11/25/2014 6:51 am

              Perhaps this media furor about UVA has something to do with the murder of UVA coed Hanna Graham in September? With all the recent news stories of bad behavior against women by black men, such as Bill Cosby, Ray Rice.., there’s a real hunger right now for a tale of evil white men. That doesn’t mean this Rolling Stone story isn’t completely true…”

              1. sorry – irish, i noted i’m basically repeating what you said. Only glanced at the rest of the comment…

              2. Robby Soave’s Giant Hoax? post was on Dec. 1 (a Monday) and didn’t mention Rosin’s podcast. Just because all of us non-journalists saw all the bullshit in the article doesn’t mean the journalists didn’t need Bradley to to editor’splain it.

                Sailer left 6 paragraphs over several comments, 5 of them sceptical and one them interested in the race angle = “was not even particularly sceptical, so much as interested in the ‘race’ angle (natch)”?

  22. the one’s who write under their real names and have reputations to worry about.

    Oh, you mean members of the club (no offense, Robby), who are inclined to assume a legitimate publication like Rolling Stone, which publishes authentic rock ribbed investigative journalism like Matt Taibbi’s screeds against Goldman Sachs and J P Morgan, would have made at least some sort of cursory attempt to verify the tale. Whereas, proles such as we would merely assess the plausibility of the details in toto against an observed working knowledge of human and organizational behavior, and find them not to be credible.

  23. AWWW MAN! Murican went to bed early.

  24. This thread sucks ass.

    1. It is the holidays. There is a lot of that going around.

  25. My Uncle Nathan got a stunning cream Cadillac CTS-V Sedan by working part-time at home online… Check This Out
    \\\\\\\\\\\\\\——- http://snipr.com/29i4rlk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.