Rand Paul

Rand Paul's Campaign, Haunted by the Ghost of His Living Father

|

It is a genuinely interesting topic, if you are at all interested in Rand Paul, since his rise to political prominence was so dependent on his father Ron Paul, and his success since them at becoming a fully normalized and mediagenic hot property has to some degree been dependent on his not being his father. A bevy of sources on the eve of Rand's presidential campaign becoming officially official wonder: how is he going to deal with dear old dad?

Gage Skidmore / Foter / CC BY-SA

First, the New York Times, which quotes me explaining why things like dual personal appearances are probably not going to happen. The hed says it most: "Ron Paul Expected to Play Little Role in Rand Paul Campaign":

Ron Paul, who never had much use for mainstream Republican support and never stood much of a chance at winning the nomination, can be unpredictable. He revels in making provocative statements — which could mean trouble for his son on the campaign trail.

"Ron Paul is a bomb waiting to go off," said Brian Doherty, an author of a book on the elder Mr. Paul and a journalist for Reason, the libertarian publication. "It would be silly to do this dual campaign thing, and I think they know it. Ron is going to say things that Rand is not going to want to stand behind."

That book, which the New York Times never wants you to know the title of no matter many times they mention it, is Ron Paul's Revolution.

David "Ex-Reason" Weigel reports at Bloomberg that Ron will at least be at the official announcement, with a good history of the hows and whys of Senator Rand Paul not being a closely identified ally of Private Citizen and Activist Educator Ron Paul. Weigel also notes that the Rand Machine just hates this whole topic and wants it to go away:

No one is going to stop Ron Paul from talking; no one is going to convince Rand Paul to answer questions about what his dad says. There can only be so many Ron/Rand "daddy issues" stories. "I don't read them at all now," snarked RANDPAC spokesman Doug Stafford in an e-mail. Once Rand Paul becomes a presidential candidate in his own right, surely, the narrative has to change.

We'll see. There are a lot of pixels to display in a modern media environment for a presidential candidate who, unlike Ron Paul, is actually being already treated as a serious player from before day one.

Philip Bump at the Washington Post notes that the venerable Paulite internet gathering place Daily Paul is letting itself fade away in the Rand Paul age, and wonders on the alas data-free question of whether all the Ron fans and voters of 2012 will stay Rand fans and voters in 2016.

The vexing question of how representative the hundreds of active Internet chatterers and thousands of event attendees were or are of the 2.1 million Paul voters has never had an authoritative answer, though my own rough sense of how many Americans hew to serious across-the-board libertarian beliefs and can gin up the passion about wherever they were coming from of the activist Paulista would lead me to believe, probably not that representative.

While the Rand Paul campaign can rest assured there is almost certainly not another candidate who could win the serious activist love, my rough impression from my time on the trail with Ron Paul tells me that the real danger for Rand is that they lose Ron people to where so many of them came from: that huge forgotten silent near-majority of 40-50 percent of Americans who exercise their sacred right not to vote.

Matt Lewis at Daily Caller doubts what so many Paulworld watchers have told me and written lately: that Rand does have a very solid grip on most of Ron's activists. It is alas a world lacking rigorous social science data, so who knows. 

Glenn Thursh at Politico zeroes in on foreign policy and Ron's more conciliatory attitude toward Russia to argue that, yes, Ron will  inadvertently or not be a thorn in his son's side as he runs. Rand has tried to and will continue to try to keep a "no comment, it's nothing to do with me" attitude about that sort of thing, but he can be a prickly guy and perhaps an untoward outburst awaits some lucky reporter on the stump.

Rand will, reports National Journal at length, be relying on a web of Paul-inspired congresspersons, including his home state man Thomas Massie and Michigan's Justin Amash, for support and fundraising for his campaign.

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.

241 responses to “Rand Paul's Campaign, Haunted by the Ghost of His Living Father

  1. I’m fairly certain that no matter how much Rand tries to distance himself from his father, the usual suspects are going to go to the mat to associate them as much as possible. It’s an obvious antagonistic strategy, especially in the age of incredibly ignorant TEAMs.

    1. Well, his dad didn’t out a racist once, or something. Therefore, Rand hates blacks, women and children obviously.

      1. He’s on the GOP ticket. Of course he hates all of the above.

        1. Hey, the media made the politics of Obama’s father an issue, so it’s only fair they do the same thing with Rand Paul. [/sarcasm]

        2. The GOP is a bunch of haters. That’s why people have so much seething hatred for the GOP.

    2. I agree that the usual suspects are doing this -from both TEAMS no less- but Rand isn’t going to denounce his father and those expecting this are in for a great disappointment.

      I may be naive and deserve to get screwed once he proves me wrong, but I really do believe Rand is trying to do this whole thing to defend the principle of our whole system, not from the idea that he thinks he knows what’s best for everyone and therefore he should lead/be president/dictator whatever.

      Whether or not anyone will believe him remains to be seen, but good luck showing me a candidate who is more willing to engage the opposition without abandoning said principles just to win a few votes for your TEAM.

      1. I don’ think he will either, but it would be nice if Ron would shut the fuck up during the campaign. While overblown by the media, he has said some questionable things and stood by even more questionable people. And he seems to be getting senile while out of office. Plus the Alex Jones section of his base that would disappear would probably be a net-positive.

        And I say that as a twice RP voter and active campaigner in 2008.

        1. I don’t think Ron is going to shut the fuck up, sadly enough. Especially in this media age.

          Rand is just going to have to be able to stand on his own, and maybe he can pull it off, but they are going to kill him on it. I think he probably is more aware of this than anyone though.

    3. Yeah, just wait and see what happens if he starts making a showing in the polls against HillBama.

  2. Oh, dear Lord, Ron is too radical and Rand isn’t radical enough! I guess I’ll just vote for Jeb!

  3. “David “Ex-Reason” Weigel reports at Bloomberg…”

    Speaking of being haunted, The Weigel’s name still hurts my eyes.

    And if this poltergeist has a nickname, shouldn’t it be David “Set Yourselves On Fire” Weigel?

    1. Dave “ratfucking cunt” Weigel?

      1. Dave “Palin’s Buttplug” Weigel?

  4. Whatever. I bet $10 Benedict Cumberbatch is going to play Rand in the movie treatment of the campaign.

    /alt-text

    1. KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!

      1. Utterly outrageous that they cast the whitest actor in Hollywood to play Khan Noonien Singh instead of a Mexican, as God intended.

        1. Mr. Serious, we humans have a streak of barbarism in us. Appalling, but there, nevertheless.

          1. THIS IS KHAN!

        2. He sucked as (the voice and emotion of) Smaug so he might as well fuck up something else that is top shelf.

          -1 Limey
          +1 Fine Corinthian Leather

  5. “David “Ex-Reason” Weigel”

    Never heard of him.

  6. “Matt Lewis at Daily Caller doubts what so many Paulworld watchers have told me and written lately: that Rand does have a very solid grip on most of Ron’s activists”

    Who will pick up the valued “9/11-truther” vote?

    1. Yeah, the Ron Paul supporters were a strange mix. Lots of libertarians, young adults getting into politics for the first time. I hope Rand can pick them up. Then there was the Alex Jones crowd, including a good number of proud bigots. Those people probably hurt a lot more than they helped.

      1. We met this really nice, young attractive blonde woman at a Reason cocktail party for Doherty’s book release. Well-spoken, pleasant and informed…
        …then she started talking about chemtrails and fluoridated water doing crazy shit to us and a whole host of other nonsense.

        Totally. Fucking. Nuts.

        1. How is it that we don’t have any chemtrail freaks here? I don’t think we have any truthers either. I would expect them to be represented in this den of iniquity.

          1. I thought we had a truther or two in here but I may be wrong.

            And I’m pretty sure Epi is a chemtrail pilot in his spare time.

            1. mtrueman is a troofer, though he’s also a fucking troll so maybe he doesn’t count…

          2. She was really attractive too.

            IIRC, that’s the party where a 7-months-pregnant Banjos was pretty sure Thaddeus Russel was hitting on her a little bit while I chatted with the blonde nutball.

            1. Your wife was pregnant while you chatted up a crazy blonde? You’re lucky you got out of there without being shot.

            2. IIRC, that’s the party where a 7-months-pregnant Banjos was pretty sure Thaddeus Russel was hitting on her a little bit while I chatted with the blonde nutball.

              Didn’t you also insult Matt Welch to his face one time? You seem to have odd interactions with Reason writers.

              1. Define “insult”.

                And I wasn’t chatting that chick up. We were all engaged in a conversation and Banjos went to pee and TRY started talking to her on the way back while I continued talking to the blonde Nutball. Totally innocent.

                1. I believe the term ‘douchebag’ might have been used, if I remember the story correctly.

                  1. Like a hipster Cosmo douchebag” is a far cry from calling someone a douchebag.

                    Right?

                    1. And in my defense, I was really drunk.

                    2. A man should always take responsibility for his actions. Unless he can blame Jack or Jose.

                    3. His good friends call him John

          3. How is it that we don’t have any chemtrail freaks here? I don’t think we have any truthers either.

            You forgot “wakeup”?

          4. What does Hihn count as?

            1. You know, I’m not convinced that Hihn’s opinions are that different from the mainstream here. I think he’s just a dick.

              1. I think he’s just a dick. So, definitely not all that different.

              2. The latter’s true but being a dick myself that doesn’t really phase me. I was referring more to his spittle-flecked discourses on insurance (health in particular), something incoherent on taxes, and a beyond Bo-level fear of anything soconish to the point of doing his best to stroke out about either Paul.

                1. Let me rephrase: he’s a dick who’s so enthusiastic about being a dick that it’s impossible to tell what he’s trying to say.

                  1. So a modern champion debater. I understand now.

              3. You know, I’m not convinced that Hihn’s opinions are that different from the mainstream here. I think he’s just a dick.

                He thinks that freedom of association is “anti-gummint” and turns people off to libertarianism, while forced cake/pizza baking is “pro-liberty”.

                1. Remember when Michael Hihn got angry at Reason for publishing an article critical of Saudi Arabia decapitating people because Hihn claimed that shows they’re ‘anti-Gummint’ rather than ‘pro-liberty?’

                  I found it!

                  Ummm, how many did innocents had been killed by “some” militants? Were there fair trials. You have no fucking idea This is why the anti-gummint libertarians are destroying the movement (or already have). It’s like attacking Gary Johnson for the color of his tie.

                  The anti-gummint mind picks out the one MAYBE negative point from so many positive ones, exaggerates it, then generates hysteria … precisely like Big Government does. For this we need libertarians?

                  The pro-liberty mind picks out the vast majority of positive points, uses logic to assume the beheadings were for murder, and knows it’s an assumption. Non-judgmental.

                  Got that? According to Michael Hihn it’s logical to assume the Saudi government only beheads militants when they’re actually guilty of something, rather than using it to just kill their political opponents.

                    1. Huh. I guess I just assumed that his long blocks of word salad were just harmless insults. What a nut.

                    2. Huh. I guess I just assumed that his long blocks of word salad were just harmless insults. What a nut.

                      The constant mixing of bold type didn’t give it away?

          5. Because this is the wretched hive of scum and villany. The den of iniquity is over there.

            1. Chemtrail truthers know better than to out ourselves so publicly.

              1. I mean themselves…

                1. Uh huh, nice try. We’re onto you now, buddy.

        2. I saw a self-proclaimed libertarian on Twitter post this crazy shit about GMOs.

          5) GMOs pollute the environment. Mainstream scientists and industry spokespersons often gloat about the supposed environmental benefits of GMOs. But the truth of the matter is that GMOs and the chemicals used to grow them are a major source of environmental pollution. A 2011 study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Science found that the Bacillus thuriengensis (Bt) bacteria engineered into Monsanto’s GM corn can now be found in hundreds of streams and waterways throughout the U.S. Midwest. Another study published in the journal Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry revealed that Roundup herbicide is also present in many waterways and groundwater sources throughout America as well. (http://naturalsociety.com)

          That sounds so scary, except for the fact that there’s minimal evidence it’s true and Bacillus thuriengensis hasn’t even been proven to be in any way dangerous.

          Bacillus thuriengensis has been one of those things that ‘organic food’ people have been obsessed with for years because there was one now discredited study claiming it killed Monarch Butterflies. So they’ve been freaking out about it for years because Bt is totally killing the Earth Mother, you guys.

          1. Well come on Irish just look at the name of it. Bacillus thuriengensis, sounds just like something a wizard would say. It’s just got to be part of some evil spell.

          2. “Bt corn is a variant of maize that has been genetically altered to express one or more proteins from the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis.”

            I’m sorry, but I should be allowed to shoot someone that stupid. I just should. Covering the entire planet with Bt corn wouldn’t add a single bacterium.

            Bacillus thuringiensis (or Bt) is a Gram-positive, soil-dwelling bacterium, commonly used as a biological pesticide. B. thuringiensis also occurs naturally in the gut of caterpillars of various types of moths and butterflies, as well on leaf surfaces, aquatic environments, animal feces, insect-rich environments, and flour mills and grain-storage facilities.

            Fucking dihydrogen monoxide scares.

          3. I’ve run into quite a few libertarian-leaning folk who are anti-GMO. It fits with the conspiracy theory component and distrust of powerful interests. The “libertarian litmus test” is whether the GMO-conspiracist thinks the government is hopelessly allied with the corporations to force GMOs on us or whether they think government should listen to the people and ban them/require mandatory content labels.

            1. I think there’s a range of stuff where I disagree with people? but i’m not going to consider it a deal breaker. Anti-GMO or vaccine people are ok by me as long as they don’t insist on some kind of urgent federal intervention to ban shit… as long as we agree on keeping govt out of our lives = have your crazy POV about your diet. Doesn’t bother me.

              9-11 truthers? I dont want them anywhere near me.

              1. Assuming all three don’t believe in government intervention, I still only voluntarily associate with the anti-GMO types (i mean people believe in all kinds of retarded dietary restrictions). But I’m curious why you’d put 9-11 truthers below anti-vaccers. I mean they are the only ones whose beliefs lead to actual harm of others (indirectly enough that I believe they have a right to not vaccinate themselves/their children).

                1. Anti-vaxxers want the right to refuse medical treatment. That is a right no matter how wrongheaded they are to exercise it by not vaccinating their children. 9/11-truthers are just fucking crazy. You could hold all sorts of conspiratorial views about 9/11, some of which may have merit but they skip over all the semi-plausible stuff into pure craziness about “controlled demolitions” and no plane hitting the Pentagon.

                  1. no plane hitting the Pentagon.

                    This is why I fucking hate them. I mean true hate. The only other group of people I actively hate are Communists and their apologists.

                    I was at Henderson Hall and SAW American 77 fly right over my head on its way to the Pentagon.

                    Fuck troofers. I only occasionally engage them on the internet, in person, they get one warning and then the fists come out.

                2. Because i’m from NYC and I was a few blocks away when the second one hit.

                  Its not a ‘scale’ issue. I just find truthers offensively stupid and glib about ‘mass murder’.

                  1. While I understand the thinking, anti-vaccination beliefs have led to far more deaths than 9-11 and while they are certifiably retarded the deniers didn’t actually cause that mass murder.

                    And yes SIV they have a right to refuse medical treatment (which I expressly stated) but the consequences of them exercising their freedom is far more severe than 9-11 truthers.

                    1. 9/11 truthers discredit ALL conspiracy theory. Some of which is actually true. This is far greater harm than a few chinks in the “herd immunity”.

                      I’ve been called a 9/11 truther for reminding people that Bush evacuated a bunch of Saudi nationals while all other flights were grounded. We now know that some of these people socially hosted or provided financial assistance to the hijackers.

                    2. if you merely reduce everything to a narrow measurement of hypothetical consequences rather than a holistic assessment of a person’s unacceptable Douchebaggery… then i can imagine your parties might be a little different than mine.

                    3. Well my point is that anti-vaccers are the only one of the three where the consequences aren’t hypothetical. But it is choosing between different douchebags, they are both huge douchebags.

        3. doing crazy shit to us and

          Go on…

  7. Is this the default NCAA championship thread?

    I’m guessing duke takes it, but my heart would rather the badgers

    1. One hell of a game so far. I think Wisconsin will win. They’re dictating the pace and Duke can’t afford either of their studs to get an early third foul, which I expect to happen.

      1. Kaminsky is playing great.

      2. Kaminsky is playing great.

        1. It is also nice to see the non-calls of the Duke charge/flops.

        2. Fuck that nigga.

          1. Grayson Allen is the Benedict Cumberbatch of college sports.

            1. Looks like a typical Dookie scumbag.

    2. badgers are playing better than I expected. coming out of the half looking good too.

    3. I don’t know who this “poor man’s Dick Vitale” is, but he’s a fucking idiot.

      1. Bill Raftery, Jim Nantz or Grant Hill? The first two have been around at least as long as Dick fucking Vitale.

        Raftery is decent IMO. Much more palatable than Vitale.

        1. Reggie miller was in there at halftime. I think i’d have recognized grant hill’s voice. Im guessing its one of the former 2.

          1. It is Bill Raftery. He is old and far easier to appreciate than most announcers. He tries to make it fun. “Send it in Jerome.”

        2. Its raftery.

          I wasn’t paying attention to him, but he started yelling and he made no sense. He’s better when he’s not frothing.

          1. Anything’s better than Lou Holtz.

            1. He just said, “YOU DONT NEED A DIETICIAN!! GIVE HIM A TASTE!! A MORSEL!!”

              thats what i mean.

              1. Bo Ryan looks like a human badger.

                1. tenacious. small. furry.

    4. I don’t usually watch basketball. Who is the one announcer that keeps talking like he had a stroke? I hate announcers like that.

      1. ONIONS

    5. fuck, 2 mins, 5 points…. and they keep getting all the breaks..

      1. ok, the badgers get the ball back or not?!?

        1. fuck, 3 pointer may have nailed it.

        2. Coach K works th eofficials so hard. And it shows in every game when they’re in the double bonus for 8 minutes in the second half while their opponent isn’t even shooting 1 and 1.

    6. OK, 40 seconds 3 points… its still a game

    7. Well, that was sort of what i expected.

      duke got all the breaks in the last few mins, and wisc fell apart just enough to open that gap.

      that turnover going to duke was BS though.

  8. BD: is it some blanket NYT policy to not include book titles or is this a specific forbidden fruit omission?

    You dropped the “bomb” quote to get quoted in NYT article, trying to pimp your product with a poor choice of words for sensitive mainstream eyeballs.

    It’s like trying to corral stray cats.

  9. Charles C.W. Cooke is always right.

    he answer, sadly, is the latter. In the Washington Post, Zerlina Maxwell argued that “we should believe, as a matter of default, what an accuser [of rape] says,” for “the costs of wrongly disbelieving a survivor far outweigh the costs of calling someone a rapist.” This view was seconded by the lawyer and journalist Rachel Sklar, who confirmed for posterity that she considers “women who speak of their own experiences” to be automatically “credible,” and anybody who asks questions to be a rape apologist.

    That Rachel Sklar woman somehow managed to fly beneath my radar, but man is she vile:

    Gross to see @tnr join the @reason drumbeat of so-called “journalistic skepticism” about the @UVA story. Rapists, they’ve got your back.

    1. How in hell did that woman make it through law school and pass the bar exam thinking like that? I guess Blackstone’s ratio is a tool of the patriarchy.

      1. Maxwell is also a law school grad. tho never passed the bar anywhere. the WaPo had referred to her as “lawyer” and commenters screamed holy hell about it until they issued a clarification. but apparently she herself was OK with people calling her that for a hot minute.

      2. I think you overestimate how easy it is to pass the bar. Yeah its a bitch to study for for a couple of months but the pass rate is high (especially for first time takers) and you can always try again.

        1. Yeah, but you would think she would’ve been exposed to the concept at some point while ostensibly studying law.

          1. Well apparently she is Canadian with a Canadian law degree. I just checked the New York Bar (where she is located) and she did in fact pass at some point but has been suspended since 2010 (nothing nefarious it appears, simply failure to register). So she is not technically a lawyer, at least in the state she resides in.

        2. I think you overestimate how easy it is to pass the bar. Yeah its a bitch to study for for a couple of months but the pass rate is high (especially for first time takers) and you can always try again.

          Tells you something about the capacities of a one Tony Villar.

    2. In 2374, the horrific attack on Zeta Reticuli Alpha VIII by the marauding forces of the Sklar could have been prevented if only we knew about the oscillating quantum flux generating technology of the ‘Xi’ili.

      1. I’m not sure whether you’re quoting source material, but one of two books I’ve ripped cover from cover was House Atreides by Frank’s… son. And it was precisely for that just make some shit up style of sci-fi writing. Oh, I found myself thinking. You wrote in a character who invented from scrap a communicator that transcends spacetime itself. Beautiful. Never mind that it doesn’t appear in any of the subsequent, you know, canonical works. Just make some shit up. Who cares about dad’s legacy. He’s moldering in a grave.

        1. I do love me some space opera, if it’s done right.

          1. Did you see Jodorowsky’s Dune? What should have been.

            1. I haven’t. It seems interesting.

              1. The documentary is entertaining. I don’t know that Jodorowsky’s take would have been an accurate adaptation of the source material, but I think it would have been a loving treatment and certainly a cult classic.

            2. Fully agreed on that count!

              1. I have tried twice to read Dune. I cannot get into it. Does that mean I have to turn in my monocle?

                1. No. It means you’re not a weirdo.

                2. Dune and Rush are both things its perfectly OK to think “actually really suck”

                  just dont make it a big thing reminding people when they start dorking out.

                  1. But a good libertarian has to put up a halfhearted defense of Rand’s novels, right?

                    1. “p a halfhearted defense of Rand’s novels, right?’

                      Uh, I guess. I read “anthem” and never touched anything else. I don’t understand why people make such a big deal about her.

                    2. I don’t understand why people make such a big deal about her.

                      Rand was an essayist who desperately wanted to be a novelist. And of course, as a Russian, she imagined that novels had to be ponderous and weighty in the best Tolstoy-ian tradition. If she stuck to the form she was talented in, the essay, she could have been acknowledged by most as the premier essayist of the 20th century.

                    3. Is there any attempt to write the Jeffersonian Bible of Rand novels? There’s probably a lot to excise before you start hewing muscle from bone.

                    4. you start hewing muscle from bone

                      …would be the reaction of Peikoff and company towards such blasphemy. Aynhu akbar!

                    5. Call me a pussy, but I had to check out. Something about knives and jugulars, which I can only assume would be making obscene introductions after the 10:57 mark. I like to pretend my protein reaches me cellophane-wrapped direct from the industrial replicator.

                    6. ” If she stuck to the form she was talented in, the essay, she could have been acknowledged by most as the premier essayist of the 20th century’

                      I forgot = i did also read “Philosophy: who needs it?”

                      i don’t recall being blown away… in fact, i recall thinking she was a bit of a pretentious dilettante.

                      Eric Hoffer, by contrast, has been one of the most influential people i’ve ever read, and 3 of his books (true believer, ordeal of change, temper of our time) to me seem far more directly “libertarian” than Rand’s goofy ‘objectivism’.

                      (*tho to be fair, hoffer could be prodded to support a lot of democrat ideas in the 60s, and had some odd thoughts about race..)

                    7. e.g. “‘ Hoffer suggested that this need for meaningful work as a rite of passage into adulthood could be fulfilled with a two-year civilian national service program (not unlike programs during the Great Depression such as the Civilian Conservation Corps).”

                      he was also an LBJ fan. because he thought the ‘black thing’ needed ‘solving’ to prevent an inevitable collapse of democracy. I wonder what he’d have said in the 1980s after 20 years of Great Society ‘solutions’, and AIDS and Crack and highest crime rates in US history….

                    8. I forgot = i did also read “Philosophy: who needs it?”

                      i don’t recall being blown away… in fact, i recall thinking she was a bit of a pretentious dilettante.

                      You read the wrong book. You were supposed to read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, which is her best work, imo. I can see how she could come across as a dilettante, as a lot of her thought was derivative. However, she was an excellent apologist, which is why she’s often a “gateway” for many.

                    9. True story:

                      My public HS made the “slow-learner” 11th grade English class read Anthem.

                    10. “My public HS made the “slow-learner” 11th grade English class read Anthem.’

                      Lol.

                      I taught an english class for 7th grade ‘advanced readers’ as a volunteer,. they loved it. most of the stuff i picked was ‘sci-fi’-ish, ‘philosophical’ stuff like that. Welcome to the Monkey House, some selected Bradbury stories.

                    11. Beats the shit out of A Separate Peace and The Catcher in the Rye.

                      While the slow-learners were moving their lips reading Anthem my class read Gogol’s Dead Souls, which I greatly enjoyed despite being forced to read it.

                    12. True story:

                      My public HS made the “slow-learner” 11th grade English class read Anthem.

                      Well, did you enjoy it?

                    13. lol

                      See above. I never read Anthem, or any other Rand fiction.

                  2. I confess to enjoying Rush up to, and including Hemispheres (I saw the show on that tour front row center). The next record and tour show sucked so I basically quit listening to them when I went off to college.

                    I tried several times to read Dune. I enjoyed the David Lynch picture much more than what I read of the book.

                  1. Thank you.

            3. It’s a fantastic documentary. I doubt the movie would have been faithful, but it would have been a hot psychedelic mess at the very least. With Mick Jagger, Amanda Lear, Salvador Dali, and a soundtrack by Pink Floyd and Magma. But it would have cost the Earth and been many hours long.

              I think Taschen should publish the illustrated screenplay they created to try to get financing: The whole thing storyboarded by Moebius, plus art for all the costumes and sets. I’d pay $100 for a copy.

    3. Serious question for Irish: why do you bother with these assholes?

      Next serious question: why do you subject the rest of us to these assholes?

      1. This coming from a man who spends his day arguing with HuffPotards.

      2. Look, man, Irish’s tirades are among the great pleasures I take from commenting here.

    4. “the costs of wrongly disbelieving a survivor far outweigh the costs of calling someone a rapist.”

      For whom, Ms. Maxwell? For whom?

      1. The cost to Ms. Maxwell, of course. Believing, she gets to peg another pin in the mental cork board that serves as her anecdotal rape culture map. Suspecting, let alone disbelieving, robs her of that pin. Frau Maxwell would vastly prefer to prick the pin than pin the prick.

    5. “The harshest charge that one can level against Erdely and her associates at Rolling Stone is that they knew full well that their story was full of holes, but that they considered their political objectives to be of greater value than were the facts in question”

      I don’t think this to be the “harshest” charge at all. i think its self-evident.

      As peter noted earlier today, and I’d pointed out multiple times before – in her interview with Slate DoubleX, she studiously avoids answering direct ‘yes/no’ questions about her level of confirmation. she in fact suggests on 2 occasions that she knew things at the time that its later proven she did not (like the underlying identity of “Drew”). IOW, “She Lied” in the interview… and that was *before* anyone had published skeptical questions.

      Cooke is indeed the only person to make the money-shot point so far

      “by so steadfastly refusing to do her due diligence, Erdely was in fact behaving exactly as a good portion of the “social justice” Left believes is proper.””

      Its no different than the ‘hate-crime-hoax‘ at Oberlin.

      What i find shocking is that anyone continues to attribute honest motives to Erdley, Rolling Stone, or anyone else in the media who thrives on this “narrative creation” bullshit.

      1. At this point it’s all just popped kernels while watching the motions filed in court. Erdley didn’t make her bed so much as dug her grave. We’ll see whether she’s made to lay in it.

        1. My concern is that it increasingly seems that there’s zero price to pay for lying, no matter how egregiously, so long as its in the service of the social-justice narrative….

          …while the SJW mob can completely destroy people, businesses, etc. at their whim over the smallest statement.

          1. Oh, I think Rolling Stone is about to find out that there’s a seeeeeeeeeerious price to pay for lying.

            1. Maybe the SJW’s can crowdfund the 8-figure judgement that’s gonna come down against them.

          2. That which can’t go on forever, won’t, said someone… else. I hope.

            It’s odd, for someone who came into politics (after I’d gotten over the lefty nonsense) as an uncompromising anarchist with an atheistic disposition toward society, but I’m strongly compelled to believe in the notion of social pendulousness?that inevitably, society corrects its imbalances. We’ve endured one rather vocal group pleading its case for awhile now, but their power to destroy people and businesses over minor heretical faux pas cannot persist forever, or even for very long. They’re expending a great deal of social capital every time they rally to arms over someone’s utterly forgettable philosophical trespass. It’s far from any guarantee, but I think we’re approaching a nadir in terms of social havoc they’re able to wreak, and soon we’ll see the upswing out of their dark valley of reactionary ideology.

            1. Your optimism is encouraging.

              I’m thinking the millenials are unlikely to mellow much, and the people coming after them will be worse.

              1. The millenials will mellow once they get real lives. IE careers and families.

                1. Sooooo after they leave their parents insurance when they turn 27?

  10. Rand Paul to make marijuana and drug reform a major campaign issue

    Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is poised to become the first top-tier presidential candidate from either party to make marijuana reform a major campaign issue.

    Paul, who will announce his White House bid on Tuesday, has argued forcefully that states should be allowed to adopt their own policies on the use of medical marijuana without fear of federal interference.

    He introduced a bill in March that would prevent federal prosecution of patients in states where medical marijuana has been legalized.
    He’s separately offered support for the growth of industrial hemp, and worked to win Senate passage of legislation in 2014 to allow states to grow hemp for research.

    More broadly, Paul has called for a serious review of the nation’s policies on illegal drugs. He’s an outspoken critic of decades-long prison sentences for the sale or possession of marijuana, which he has called “ridiculous.”

    The positions have received favorable notice from the pro-marijuana movement, which could help Paul draw young, libertarian fans to his brand and build the case that he is the best GOP candidate to take on Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner, in 2016.

    Good, hold those fuckers’ feet to the fire about why sick people are being denied palliative drugs and young black kids are going to jail for 20 years for possessing a plant.

    1. He introduced a bill in March that would prevent federal prosecution of patients in states where medical marijuana has been legalized.

      How does this jibe with equal protection? Seriously. I can’t see it passing judicial review.

      1. Well shit. This was a serious question. I hoped a few people would chime in.

        1. IANAL but aren’t there things that are illegal on the Federal level but legal in some states, like gambling?

          1. I don’t believe there’s a federal law banning gambling. I believe there are interstate anti-gambling laws at the Federal level, but I don’t believe there’s ever been an explicit ban on gambling by the feds like with drugs.

            1. Federal a Wire Act of 1961 banned interstate gambling. I don’t think there are any other federal gambling statutes on the books except for the 1992 law regarding gambling on sporting events.

            2. Yeah you’re right, theoretically any state can legalize gambling.

        2. Well, the only thing I can think of is

          1. Federalism. Not sure how well that flies anymore.

          2. Equal protection doesn’t mean they have to prosecute everyone who breaks a law.

          1. As to 2, I can’t see how a defendant on a federal charge in Utah could be prosecuted when his lawyer gets the arresting federal officer to admit, under oath, that he would not have arrested him for the same offense of a federal crime if he performed the exact same activity in Colorado.

            That’s what I mean. That’s not “prosecutorial discretion”. That’s separate and unequal.

          2. I can think of a third?

            3. FYTW

    2. This will help win the general, especially because he should be able to explain his position much more clearly than Hillary would hers. However, I am sure the republican party will somehow fuck it up the marijuana issue up.

  11. When is someone going to live blog CSI: Cyber? It looks like the bestest show ever.

    1. Exactly the comment I would expect from a chemtrail…er? (is there a convenient name for chem trail conspiracists like truthers or birthers?)

      I’ve only seen clips, and that show makes me want to slap the writers up the head with an ancient desktop computer, one of the ones that weighs like 50 lbs.

  12. OT: Fuuuuuck I hate Duke.

    1. I never got the Duke hate. Unless you’re a fan of another ACC school.

      1. I hate establishment sports powers. The Yankees, Lakers, Cowboys, Duke, teams like that.

        I hate the Red Sox, but I root for them when they play the goddamn Yankees.

        1. I suppose you’ll hate the Buckeyes in a few years after the run they’re about to go on.

        2. ^this

          they’re also a small private school in a world of sports where the local fans love the State schools. in NC, Duke is like the least loved sports program after NC state, tarheels, and even Wake Forest. Because the students are all out of towner snobs. vanderbilt was the same way, only we sucked at sports.

        3. I guess I can understand. Kind of. Maybe it’s because I coach and I always wanted to be the established power.

        4. Yes, Stupidity, feel the hate flow through you…

          1. BECAUSE DUKE FEEDS ON YOUR TEARS

            1. Shouldn’t you be rooting for Notre Dame or something? 😀

              1. Wait, isn’t Notre Dame a *football* school?

                1. Yes, yes it is…I just checked Cardinal Newman’s *The Idea of a University,* and it says specifically “hooray for the Fighting Irish! Win one for the Gipper!”

                  1. You can always root for Gonzaga Eddie.

                    1. Be more specific…whose gonzagas should I root for?

      2. Because that lacrosse team raped and racially hate speeched a minority that was forced to work in a sex trade by a society with Duke graduates at the top. Duh.

    2. That’s always topical.

  13. Pope Francis, commending the work of an Italian religious-freedom group, calls on the world community to remember the persecution of Christians worldwide, in the wake of the massacre of Kenyan Christians and the anti-Christian policies of ISIS.

    http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr…..ersecution

    His Holiness probably isn’t referring to Christian bakers in the US, who still have a fighting chance under American law to get their persecutors to back off.

    Without some semblance of the rule of law, Christian business(wo)men in the US would be at the mercy of the mob.

    1. “They are martyrs of today and they are many,” the pontiff continued, adding to his prepared text. “We can say that they might be more numerous than the first centuries.”

      Ha! No, I don’t think we can say that. However, humans seem increasingly proficient at murder so who knows how high the body count can go?

      Apparently, Christians in the ME have to worry about getting killed. Here, no such thing. Instead, they worry about legal prostitution.

      1. We don’t have to worry about getting killed because we have, and are determined to defend, rights under the Bill of Rights.

        Take away the Bill of Rights and Lord knows what they’ll do to us.

        We have no intention of finding out.

        Hence our support for enforcing constitutional rights.

  14. DUKE!!! Fuck yeah!

    1. you’re just trolling

  15. Philip Bump … wonders on the alas data-free question of whether all the Ron fans and voters of 2012 will stay Rand fans and voters in 2016.

    Whether the Paulites will vote for Rand in the General is irrelevant. What they won’t do is, pack auditoriums, hijack straw poles and caucuses, deliver $10M money bombs, etc. They did those things for Ron because he was a radical.

    Rand wants to sit on the throne not batter down the palace gates. History shows that anyone who navigates the existing system becomes a tool of the establishment by the time they reach the oval office, no matter what kind of hope and change they promised along the way.

    Rand knows he can’t tap the activists. He made the calculation that the system will deliver more, and with less negatives, than the radicals.

    1. You’re saying that if the Ron Paul activists see a race between Rand Paul and Hillary or Warren or whoever in 2016, they’ll say: “Naw, we’ll sit this one out. Not enough difference between them!”?

  16. New book about Lincoln and the Jews:

    “”Nobody realized that Lincoln played such a crucial role in making Jews equal in America. Nobody paid attention to Lincoln’s rhetorical shift away from ‘Christian America’ language, and toward inclusive language,” [coauthor Jonathan D.] Sarna states….

    http://forward.com/articles/21…..z3WafKF7ij

    1. What are you doing reading the der Forverts? What are you, some sort of pinko Commie?

      1. Would you rather I read The Backward?

        1. I already dropped my subscription to the New York Times.

        2. You read the Algemeiner like normal people do.

  17. That was a really good game though.

    Too bad Indiana had all of the gay fans removed from the stadium at gunpoint before the game in accordance with their new law.

    1. lol

      i think the “Indiana Holocaust” would be a nice meme to develop.

      “did you hear about indiana? They banned reruns of Will and Grace. Forever.”

      1. Wouldn’t that be an incentive to move there?

      2. What image would be used for the meme? It would need to be fabulous.

          1. Well,that’s pretty much perfect.

          2. Heh. Since none of us read the articles anymore, should we have Reason turn the forums into an imageboard? We can call it liberchan or something.

            1. ” should we have Reason turn the forums into an imageboard?’

              barf.

              I’ve noted that Gawker comments seem to consist entirely of “emotional noises and animated GIFs.”

              its the worst thing ever.

              1. GO WAY, IM BAITIN

      3. On the plus side though, Lindsey Graham keeps getting stopped at the border. So they got that going for them.

        1. [golf clap]

        2. Indiana just passed a bill where they no longer recognize Brian Boitano’s gold medal.

      4. Did you hear about Indiana? They banned the names Bruce and Lance and Julian. Forever.

      5. Did you hear about Indiana? They banned brunch. Forever.

        1. I heard they also banned quiche.

  18. World’s oldest person dies at 116, after 6 day reign

    On Wednesday, Gertrude Weaver was unofficially named the world’s oldest person, and she celebrated by having her nails painted pink and answering reporters’ questions.

    On Monday, just days later, Weaver died at the age of 116 in Camden, Ark.

    Weaver died about 10 a.m. Monday from complications of pneumonia, according to Kathy Langley, an administrator at Silver Oaks Health and Rehabilitation, where Weaver lived.

    “It was absolutely unexpected; it’s quite a shock to all of us,” Langley told the Los Angeles Times in a phone interview. “We’re very saddened by her loss, and she will be greatly missed.”

    Weaver became known as the world’s oldest verified person after the death of a 117-year-old Japanese woman, Misao Okawa, last week. Guinness World Records had not yet officially named Weaver the world’s oldest person, but will probably grant her the title posthumously, said Robert Young, who tracks supercentenarians, or people over the age of 110, for the Los Angeles-based Gerontology Research Group.

    The curse continues! It’s like being Al-Qaeda’s Number 2.

    1. Yep, if the 120 YO dies before you do, you’re likely next in line at age 119!

    2. BTW, what happened to all those Himalayan folk who supposedly lived until 120 or so? Last I read, there was some doubt that their birth dates had been ‘carefully’ recorded. Hoax?

      1. Probably never verified. Those cases where people live absurdly long always seem to happen in societies that don’t have very good records keeping…

      2. Danny Almonte was Himilayan?

        1. I researched it. Whole idea of eternal life in the Himalayas/Tibet/Shangri-La was originally started by this French explorer a couple centuries ago. Turned into a meme, most famously in the novel Lost Horizon. Guy was an 18th century explorer, with all the scientific method training that entails, and his travel narrative went for a couple hundred used, so I didn’t bother scanning it. Might be on Google books now.

          1. mauricegirodias|4.7.15 @ 12:33AM|#
            “I researched it. Whole idea of eternal life in the Himalayas/Tibet/Shangri-La was originally started by this French explorer a couple centuries ago. Turned into a meme, most famously in the novel Lost Horizon.”

            So the high-altitude equivalent of the Noble Savage? Primitive people living austere lives, in harmony with “nature”, living long, healthy lives without the ‘excesses’ of western capitalism.
            Yep, rings all the post-mosaic religious bells. And how is that old slave keeper the Dalai Lama? The CIA keeping him in first-class airline seats?

            1. And how is that old slave keeper the Dalai Lama?

              OT, the Bullshit episode about him and Mother Teresa and Gandhi isn’t available OnDemand.

              1. Watching it on YT now, fuck me, they used Michael Parenti as a fucking source.

        2. I researched it. Whole idea of eternal life in the Himalayas/Tibet/Shangri-La was originally started by this French explorer a couple centuries ago. Turned into a meme, most famously in the novel Lost Horizon. Guy was an 18th century explorer, with all the scientific method training that entails, and his travel narrative went for a couple hundred used, so I didn’t bother scanning it. Might be on Google books now.

    3. I heard the Koch Brothers have been using fluoridated GMO chemtrails to kill off the world’s oldest people.

      1. *cough, cough, cough*
        What?

  19. Gay woman explains why she donated to Memories Pizza

    Courtney Hoffman was one of thousands of people who donated over $842,000 to the Christian owners of the pizzeria last week…

    While she clearly disagrees with the owners’ beliefs, she still supports their right to operate their business based on those beliefs. In addition to her $20 donation to Memories Pizza, Hoffman wrote:

    “As a member of the gay community, I would like to apologize for the mean spirited attacks on you and your business. I know many gay individuals who fully support your right to stand up for your beliefs and run your business according to those beliefs. We are outraged at the level of hate and intolerance that has been directed at you and I sincerely hope that you are able to rebuild.”

    Kris Cruz, a radio host and producer of “The Jeff Adams Show,” was the first person to flag Hoffman’s donation. He then contacted her through Facebook and she agreed to join them on the air Monday.

    “My girlfriend and I are small business owners, and we think there is a difference between operating in a public market space and then attaching the name of your business to a private event,” she said. “Like, if we were asked to set up at an anti-gay marriage rally, I mean, we would have to decline.”

    What a hateful homophobic bigot!

    1. Courtney Hoffman was one of thousands of people who donated over $842,000 to the Christian owners of the pizzeria last week…

      Thousands of people donated over $842,000? Those fuckers are gonna be richer than Bill Gates!

      1. That’s the way I read it too! Dyammmm!

    2. I heard that GoFundMe has been behind the scenes creating and drumming up these controversies in order to profit off the culture war.

      1. The SPLC should open up a file on the vile hate group operating as GoFundMe.

  20. we think there is a difference between operating in a public market space and then attaching the name of your business to a private event

    I guess I shouldn’t complain but it sucks that even this isn’t really supportive of property rights and freedom of association.

    1. It’s a start – for whatever reason, you’ll find a certain number of gay people operating small business, and for some reason, many of them seem to feel nervous at the idea of a hate-fuelled boycott of a small business owner – Lord knows where this nervousness comes from!

      1. “for whatever reason, you’ll find a certain number of gay people operating small business,”

        Even in SF, gays met a certain discrimination for quite a while. As a result, quite a few ended up in accounting fields where women did a lot of hiring and weren’t threatened.
        And for the same reason, as you mention, many opened businesses, largely retail, focusing on service; restaurants and the like.
        To this day, wife and I retain friendships from some of those businesses where we didn’t lose the friends to AIDS; RIP my friend.

      2. You’d be nervous too, if holding the leash to a giant pit bull that could turn on you at any time!

        1. In what way are the small business owners quoted “holding the leash?”

      3. Is it a start though? Pretty much no one on either side of this issue supports true freedom of association and the end of all public accommodation laws. I mean you yourself aren’t.

        1. ” you yourself aren’t”

          Aren’t what?

          1. Aren’t what?

            Supportive of freedom of association. Seeing is how you don’t support divorce and support prosecuting prostitutes for ruining marriages.

            And do you support the right of business owners to refuse service to people because of their race, gender, or religion?

            1. “do you support the right of business owners to refuse service to people because of their race, gender, or religion?”

              Yes, because history has shown what happens on the bottom of that particular slippery slope.

              “Seeing is how you don’t support divorce and support prosecuting prostitutes for ruining marriages.”

              Let’s see…married couples freely associate, in general, by pledging to “forsake[] all others” and to remain faithful “as long as you both shall live.”

              It seems to me that if one of the spouses unilaterally decides to bang some third party – prostitute, lover, or whatever – then *they’re* the one violating the terms of the freely-agreed-to association.

              1. Oh, and re prostitutes, I simply said you can’t settle the issue by simply invocation of the concept of “consenting adults,” since the wronged spouse is supposedly an adult, and generally doesn’t consent.

                So we’re left with a utilitarian argument on whether to legalize or punish prostitution, and I acknowledged the *utilitarian* arguments against criminalization.

              2. It seems to me that if one of the spouses unilaterally decides to bang some third party – prostitute, lover, or whatever – then *they’re* the one violating the terms of the freely-agreed-to association.

                But the prostitute hasn’t and you support prosecuting them. And while banging a prostitute while married might be a breach of contract subject to whatever penalties might be available under that contract, any punishment beyond the boundaries of the contract, whether civil or criminal, would be a violation of freedom of association.

                1. The prostitute is in effect a receiver of stolen property – the marital affections which her client promised to his wife.

                2. ^

                  You can have one of my Reese’s pieces for that.

                  1. No, not you G.K.C!! Hands off that Reese’s!!!

                    Grrrrrr posting thingy!!!!! Grrrrr!!

  21. “Rand Paul’s Campaign, Haunted by the Ghost of His Living Father”

    OK, I’ll take the bait –

    RON PAUL: I am thy father’s spirit
    Doomed for a certain term to walk the night
    And for the day confined to fast in fires,
    Till the dumb gaffes that hindered my campaign
    Are burnt and purged away.

    RAND: But, Dad, you haven’t died yet!

    RON: But that I am forbid
    To tell the secrets of my prison house,
    I could a tale unfold whose lightest word
    Would harrow up thy soul, freeze thy young blood,
    Make thy two eyes, like stars, start from their spheres,
    Thy knotted and combin?d locks to part
    And each particular hair to stand on end,
    Like quills upon the fearful porpentine.
    But this eternal blazon must not be
    To ears of flesh and blood. List, list, O, list!
    If thou didst ever thy dear father love?

    RAND: O God!

    RON: Revenge his losses in 08 and 12!

    RAND: Really

    RON: I find thee apt,
    And duller shouldst thou be than the phat weed
    That both of us desire to legalize,
    Wouldst thou not stir in this. Now, Rand, hear….

  22. Or lse it is haunted by his dumb commnts and Republican outbursts…one of those…

  23. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  24. Actually though, don’t many libertarian leaning people (including this place) make a point of simply not voting, period?

    So the thing about losing Ron Paul supporters, at least those that pay lip service support, is that they probably don’t vote, period.

  25. I find it funny how Ron Paul can write a book called re-LOVE-ution and at the same time hold the position that soldiers deserve to get murdered by psychotics, and people getting beheaded, burned and blown up across the world is not only not our problem, but is our fault.

    Rand Paul needs to distance himself.

    1. Don’t you belong in the RedState comment thread?

  26. Daily Paul fading away (if that does happen) is not such a bad thing. Daily Paul often descended into a pit of crazy that was used by other campaigns to “prove” that Ron was just a crazy rabbit.

    Rand has been front and center in the media from day one in the senate and is not anywhere near as dependent as Ron was on generating name recognition by any means. I think most of Ron’s supporters will come over to Rand, even if there are a few policy differences (either real or due to the reality of a national campaign that wants to win). Those who can only accept libertarian purity 24/7/365 will pout and stay home.

  27. My classmate’s step-aunt makes $61 /hour on the internet . She has been fired from work for nine months but last month her pay check was $12801 just working on the internet for a few hours. try this out.
    GO TO THE SITE TEC NEXT TAB FOR MORE INFO AND HELP
    ????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  28. He is not particularly haunted. The are both libertarian enough to be okay with other people, including family members, having a different opinion. People writing for a libertarian magazine should realize that.

  29. He is not particularly haunted. The are both libertarian enough to be okay with other people, including family members, having a different opinion. People writing for a libertarian magazine should realize that.

  30. Rand Paul is the best candidate for President in 2016, If the republican party cheats against him like they did his father I will be voting for the Libertarian candidate for president like I did in 2012!

  31. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  32. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!….
    ==================
    http://www.NavJob.com
    ==================

  33. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.