It's Easy to Mistake Whole Foods' John Mackey for a Progressive Left-Winger. Nothing Could Be Further From the Truth.

The radical vision of capitalism behind Whole Foods Market.

|

"Intellectuals have always disdained commerce" says Whole Foods Market co-founder John Mackey. They "have always sided…with the aristocrats to maintain a society where the businesspeople were kind of kept down."

More than any other outlet, Whole Foods has reconfigured what and how America eats and the chain's commitment to high-quality meats, produce, cheeses, and wines is legendary. Since opening his first store in Austin, Texas in 1980, Mackey now oversees operations around the globe and continues to set the pace for what's expected in organic and sustainably raised and harvested food.

Because of Whole Foods' trendy customer base and because Mackey is himself a vegan and champions collaboration between management and workers, it's easy to mistake Mackey for a progressive left-winger. Indeed, an early version of Jonah Goldberg's best-selling 2008 book Liberal Fascism even bore the subtitle "The Totalitarian Temptation from Mussolini to Hillary Clinton and The Totalitarian Temptation from Hegel to Whole Foods."

Yet nothing could be further from the truth—and more distorting of the radical vision of capitalism at the heart of Mackey's thought. A high-profile critic of the minimum wage, Obamacare, and the regulatory state, Mackey believes that free markets are the best way not only to raise living standards but also to explore new ways of building community and creating meaning for individuals and society. At the same time, he challenges all sorts of libertarian dogma, including the notion that publicly traded companies should always seek to exclusively maximize shareholder value (go here to read a 2005 Reason debate about the social responsibility of business featuring Mackey, Milton Friedman, and Cypress Semiconductor CEO T.J. Rodgers). Conscious Capitalism, the book he co-authored with Rajendra Sisodia, lays out a detailed case for Mackey's vision of a post-industrial capitalism that addresses spiritual desire as much as physical need.

Reason TV's Nick Gillespie talked with Mackey earlier this summer at FreedomFest, where among other things, Mackey debated billionaire Peter Thiel on the role of monopoly and competition in business.

Runs about 16 minutes.

Produced by Todd Krainin. Cameras by Zach Weissmueller and Paul Detrick.

Scroll below for downloadable versions. Subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel to receive notifications when new material goes live.

This story was orginally posted at Reason.com on August 12, 2015.

Go here for a complete transcript of the interview.

Advertisement

NEXT: Lawman Johnny Lawsky's Legacy: Bitcoin Firms Flee New York

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. I’ve never met a sane vegan,just say’n.

    1. My brother in law is marrying a vegan. She seems very reasonable.

      1. I refuse to let you mammals miss the softball that Florida Man just lobbed…HERE YA GO

        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Qosk-UIQIjA

        1. How do you listen to music with no ears?

          1. I’m guessing he crawls on top of the speaker and feels the vibrations with his body.

            1. Hey, he may not have ears, but he has *feelings,* you micro-agressing lizardphobes.

              1. My dog is a lizard macro aggressor. He loves hunting and eating lizards. How do I link a picture here?

                1. How do I link a picture here?

                  You can link to Derpbook pics by clicking view full size, then right click and select copy image URL.

                  1. I broke down and got a Twitter. Dog pic in link below.

                    1. Your dogs are gorgeous. Your basketball is outrageous… #’nole4life

                    2. Thanks. I won the ball at one of those carnival games.

              2. My species has no concept of micro-aggression or passive aggression.

                It’s pretty much complete disdain or rampaging raptor. Take your pick.

                1. I choose…THE RAMAGING RAPTOR!!!

                  *straps on battle armor*

                  1. THE RAMAGING RAPTOR

                    Excuse my ignorance, what is “ramaging”? Is that a term unique to libertarians?
                    Or is it part of the local Floridian dialect?

                    1. Its a Florida thang, you wouldn’t understand, mostly because I wouldn’t spell it correctly.

                2. I’ll take the disdain, thank you.

                  1. you want fries with that?

          2. I just have flat smooth membranes where you would expect my ears to be. They conduct concussive waves to a nerve underneath. One advantage is that they do not collect debris or bugs like your filthy auditory appendages. However I like the ability to cover them so as to free myself of the utter nonsense that surrounds me on this world.

            To put it in Floridian speak, I can done hear that racket you make while you work on you ridiculous contraptions in your garage.

          3. Whut? Lizards have ears.

        2. Your just a tree chicken and I have a 12 gauge o\u to put you in the pot

      2. In gator country,Molly Hachet is sad.The ones I met are so anti hunting,and of course anti gun.I just don’t see it being that healthy of a diet.And I like beef and game and if you don’t fine,but,no fish or seafood and no gator or turtle? I cringe at the thought.Oh,all women seem sane till you marry them.

        1. “…all women seem sane till you marry them…”

          Cite! On what planet have you been meeting these sane women?

        2. She is from Michigan originally and her dad is a big time hunter. Maybe seeing all the butchered animals turned her off. Also yes, marriage does strange things to people.

          1. There you have it,a damn MU fan,has to be crazy,go Buckeyes

            1. Give her a chance. Maybe she’s a Spartan. They’re decent people…unlike the filthy proggie turds from scUM.

              O-H…

              1. Spartans are just spoiled frat boy douchebags and popular high schoolers with SATs too low to get into U of M.

      3. I hope she eats some meat, for his sake!

        1. I’m sure she does…until the marriage license is signed! Amirite fellas?!?

          1. Why do you think a new bride smiles?

          2. “Women…can’t live with ’em, can’t shoot em.”

            At least not with a gun, if you catch my drift…

            1. The truth is that you can shoot them. But the way things work these days you probably won’t be allowed to finish your drink afterwards.

      4. Florida Man passing judgment on what is sane?

        Ahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!

    2. That is like saying you never met a sane person who hears voices that only they can hear.

      I know a vegan who seems reasonable but if you look close enough you can see she is very fragile emotionally. A bit unbalanced. She is friendly and functional and actually doesn’t push veganism.

      1. With the ones I have met it’s not just their diet,but,a political statement.

      2. I know a vegan couple who both lost an enormous amount of weight after they stopped being normal. I do what any normal person does and make sure to eat a lot of meat while around them, often while making orgasmic noises.

      3. I get the idea of veganism, but life destroys life to survive. There really is no way around it. I guess you could only eat fruit and poop outside to be part of the circle of life, but fuck that noise.

        1. Actually I think it’s rather cowardly, eating helpless plants that can’t flee or mount a defense. At least the carnivores are picking on life forms that have a chance of defending themselves.

          1. Except some plants want you to eat their fruit to propagate the species. I think there is a subset of vegans that do just that, so they don’t kill a plant.

            1. Oh, so it’s okay because they’re totally asking for it.

              Literally worse than Hitler.

              1. Hey – that flower’s petals shouldn’t have been so enticing.

      4. Vegetarianism is a dietary choice. Veganism is an eating disorder.

    3. Honestly, I don’t think you’ve ever met a real vegan. I bet you’ve probably seen vegans from a distance, and in your mind, they were wearing vegan clothes, doing vegan things, and speaking their vegan language–and it all looked crazy.

      Once, when I was working for a software company, we were having dinner with a client from the Midwest. Two of the managers there were not only vegan but also animal rights activists. They ordered their veggies, and the client noticed and their orders seemed…weird to her.

      The client asked them why they’d just ordered veggies, and I explained to her that they’re vegans. The client looked at them both and said, “Well, have you tried bear? We went camping last weekend near the county dump, and my husband snuck in that night and shot a bear. It was delicious!”

      In other words, she couldn’t grok that my coworkers didn’t eat meat because they cared about the animals. The client genuinely thought that they just hadn’t found one that tasted good to them yet, but she wasn’t a bad person. Still, from that point on, my vegan coworkers saw her as if she were wearing meat-eating clothes, doing meat-eating things, and speaking her meat-eating language.

      And if you asked my vegan coworkers, they might say that they’d never met a sane meat eater. That eating meat makes people psychopathic and insane.

      1. Cool story, bro.

      2. IOW your coworkers are nuts and you’re too polite to point it out. (NTTAWWT)

        1. yeah, basically that.

          Veganism, and the vegans i’ve met, seem to have nothing to do about ‘caring about animals’….

          because really…Butter? you won’t eat butter because it comes from a cow. A cow that needs to produce and replace that milk anyway in the natural order of business. No, you insist someone build another factory and design some vegetable oil & synthetic chemical-flavor spread to function in exactly the same way, and even *try* to make it taste the same as the actual Butter… and then they’ll eat *that* – the butter simulacra – and pretend that their consumption of this so-super-Not-Butter-Bowel-Lubricant is a great achievement of their superior moral code, despite them not actually sacrificing an iota of the experience and convenient benefits that things like ‘dairy fat’ provide.

          Neither does eating Tofu hot dogs make a person an ascetic monk who’s renounced the material world and now spends their days meditating on how to escape life’s wheel of destruction and rebirth.

          Meanwhile, the “animals” that the vegan holds in such regard are not helped at all. as though the millions of acres devoted to soy production to feed their vanity didn’t have any impact on anyone’s habitat.

          Which is why ELF or PETA are to me far more legitimately proper-crazy-‘animal rightists’. Vegans are just people who eat shit that is ultimately less healthy because they’ve invented some fool’s-morality-calculus in their head

          1. “Vegans are just people who eat shit that is ultimately less healthy because they’ve invented some fool’s-morality-calculus in their head”

            I doubt vegans invented any moral code. They simply take widely held views on the immorality of inflicting suffering on animals seriously. These views are also held by meat eaters. Hypocrisy, self indulgence and frivolousness. That is how I would characterize the meat-eaters attempts to justify their food choices for the most part.

            1. Yeah but then again you’re an idiot.

              My justification is simple: meat is good for me (I need the iron) and usually tastes good. Also, animals have no rights and no value aside from what they provide me.

            2. How is being a meat eater hypocritical? Because to me it is part of the natural order.

              How is it self-indulgent? Because to me it is an efficient means to provide my body the fuel it needs to be efficient and healthy.

              How is it frivolous by definition? Because I’m much more likely to leave a few ounces of veggies on my plate that a few ounces of that NY Strip.

              Feel free too answer. Or don’t. I’ll probably be cooking some bacon and won’t be able to read it right away.

              1. I think we’re being hypocritical in a way.

                Other people don’t care about the same things we do. We know that–we’re libertarians! We’re constantly telling other people that we should all be free to make our own choices because life is complicated, and not everyone cares about the same things to the same extent.

                I’m not especially impressed with people who stay stoned all weekend frittering their lives away on TV and Xbox, but I generally refrain from making fun of stoners around here–because the drug war is an unbelievably stupid and painful exercise in futility.

                Can’t we give vegans and animal rights people the same credit?

                From a libertarian perspective, there is nothing wrong with being a vegan or caring about animals–or being evangelical about both of those things.

                Even the animal rights people have a libertarian argument to make–if they do so within the context of protecting individual rights. You want to say that they’re wrong about whether those animals have the same rights we do–or that they’re wrong about animals having any rights at all–then that’s an argument two libertarians could be having on different sides of the abortion issue.

                1. If one person cares more about animals or the environment, that doesn’t make them any less libertarian than someone who cares about gun rights and getting rid of the income tax*. It’s how they get there and what they want to do about it that matters.

                  *In fact, I’m sure there are people in this thread who care about all those things to some degree or another.

                2. “I generally refrain from making fun of stoners around here–because the drug war is an unbelievably stupid and painful exercise in futility…..

                  ….Can’t we give vegans and animal rights people the same credit?”

                  The difference in the comparison is that no one is pretending stoners are anything but self-indulgent hedonists

                  By contrast: see mtrueman, who seems to think he maintains moral superiority to meat-eaters via his stupid, unhealthy, irrational consumption choices.

                  If people refrain from mockery and disdain of the stoner, its because stoners do not pretend to maintain any particular moral advantage over any others. “To each their own”

                  But the vegan gets an extra helping of abuse specifically for their narcissistic, illusory self-regard.

                  1. “By contrast: see mtrueman, who seems to think he maintains moral superiority to meat-eaters via his stupid, unhealthy, irrational consumption choices.”

                    To me, that’s like Christians who want to discriminate against gay people.

                    I don’t applaud them for that, but that’s their right. I’ve stood up for much worse!

                    Yeah, a lot of vegans think they’re morally superior, and a lot of Christians do, too. That’s no reason why any of them can’t make their case in libertarian terms.

                    As a libertarian, I think of myself as morally superior to authoritarians, too. Other libertarians may argue that’s different because libertarians ARE morally superior to authoritarians, but I’d like to point out that Christian fundamentalists and animal rights people can make the same argument–if and when they’re making their case in libertarian terms.

                  2. “By contrast: see mtrueman, who seems to think he maintains moral superiority to meat-eaters”

                    You know it’s wrong to inflict suffering on animals yet you choose to continue to do so. You are correct to see the moral inferiority of your position. All your mocking and disdain doesn’t improve things.

                    1. You’re saying nothing about anyone or anything but your own persistent and desperate need to see yourself as “Morally Superior”. Which is the real benefit you seek. Caged Chickens are just your personal Jesus-Juice.

                    2. “You’re saying nothing about anyone or anything but your own persistent and desperate need to see yourself as “Morally Superior””

                      You seem to think there is something wrong in taking the morally superior side of an issue. I don’t see anything to be ashamed of and can’t understand your rejection unless you are a moral relativist. As a moral relativist, your position would be that eating meat or not eating meat amount to the same thing, morally speaking. You don’t argue this, at least not explicitly. That’s why you lack coherence.

                    3. “”That’s why you lack coherence.””

                      Dunning, meet Kruger

                    4. “”That’s why you lack coherence.””

                      Dunning, meet Kruger”

                      Well what is your position on inflicting suffering on animals? I still don’t have much of an idea. All you do is rail against the moral superiority of those who choose not to eat meat. Why not take a stand for what you believe in?

                    5. Against stupidity the very gods
                      Themselves contend in vain

                3. No is isn’t. You can argue the rights of an unborn child vs the rights of the woman carrying it. Non-human animals do not, and never can posses rights.

                  1. Non-human animals do not, and never can posses rights.

                    Also, animals have no rights and no value aside from what they provide me.

                    (from Cytotoxic above)

                    Why? What makes humans different that we alone can posses rights?

                    1. “Why? What makes humans different that we alone can posses rights?”

                      Because Jesus made us out of clay on the sixth day, and he breathed the breath of life into our nostrils?

                  2. “Non-human animals do not, and never can posses rights.”

                    Doesn’t matter. Whether or not an animal has rights is irrelevant. They can suffer and moral people try to avoid inflicting suffering on those with rights or without them.

                    1. They can suffer and moral people try to avoid inflicting suffering on those with rights or without them.

                      My beef and bacon never “suffers”. I provide them with food they might not be able to find in the wild. I protect them from other carnivores. I provide cures if they are diseased.

                      And they die immediately when I want a bacon double cheeseburger.

              2. “How is being a meat eater hypocritical?”

                Because you know it is wrong to inflict suffering on animals yet you continue to do so.

                “How is it self-indulgent?”

                Because there are ways to fuel yourself without inflicting suffering on animals.

                “How is it frivolous by definition?”

                Because you are inflicting suffering on animals because you find it pleasurable to eat meat.

                1. I don’t know that it is wrong to inflict suffering on animals. You’re putting words in my mouth saying that.

                  I’ve inflicted death on animals. I’ve personally killed them and consumed their meat. I did so because as a human, I am a meat-eater. And in sorry, but your morality bullshit here is a non-starter with anybody that has a basic understanding of human biology and nutrition.

                  1. “I did so because as a human”

                    Good news for you. As a human, you have free will and can choose what you put into your mouth and what not to. As you know it’s wrong to inflict suffering on animals, you should take this into account when you decide what to eat.

                    1. You keep saying As you know it’s wrong to inflict suffering on animals. I will repeat, I do not “know” that. I don’t even agree with it.

                      Animals have evolved to their place on earth. Man has evolved to the top of that list and by right can do with the others as he sees fit to benefit his species. Same goes for any other animal, be it a predator or herbivore.

                    2. “You keep saying As you know it’s wrong to inflict suffering on animals. I will repeat, I do not “know” that.”

                      I thought you did know it. In response to me you said: “I’ve inflicted death on animals. I’ve personally killed them and consumed their meat.” I’m talking about inflicting suffering and rather than saying “i’ve inflicted suffering on animals” you talk instead of killing them, presumably without inflicting suffering on them. If you want to talk about your experience causing animals to suffer, then now’s your chance.

                      “Animals have evolved to their place on earth. Man has evolved to the top of that list and by right can do with the others as he sees fit to benefit his species.”

                      Twaddle and you know it. You have the capacity to choose what you eat. If you were so inclined, you never need to eat meat again, and all the evolution in the world isn’t going to change that. I thought Libertarians were supposed to celebrate choice. You are posing as some kind of willing slave to evolution. It’s nonsense.

                    3. I can think of no suffering greater than death. That’s what I meant, dumbass.

                      And I Don’t know a way to kill a chicken that doesn’t involve some infliction of suffering. The day they invent a painless method of death that doesn’t spoil the meat, I’m in.

                      I suppose I could let them die of old age and then eat them. But that would just be gross and unhealthy.

                    4. “I can think of no suffering greater than death. That’s what I meant, dumbass.”

                      Then a little more thinking wouldn’t do you any harm.

                      “And I Don’t know a way to kill a chicken that doesn’t involve some infliction of suffering.”

                      Nobody is forcing you to inflict suffering on a chicken. The choice is all yours, whether or not you like to acknowledge this.

                    5. Slide a thin sharp knife between the spinal column and the windpipe. If you successfully avoid cuting either of those and cut through the jugular and carotid the chicken will peacefully bleed to death with a minimum of pain/thrashing. I grew up raising/butchering/eating chickens, it’s the best method I know.

                    6. So you were actually considerate in the way you killed animals.

                      You did your best to make sure they didn’t suffer needlessly?

                      I understand plenty of hunters frown on sloppy hunting. Say whatever else you want about Ted Nugent, I bet the animals he takes with his bow don’t suffer much–and he probably doesn’t think much of sloppy hunters who make their kills suffer.

                      I’ve known a lot of hunters. Most of them seemed to think that if you didn’t bring the right gun for the job and knew how to use it, then you weren’t an especially ethical hunter.

            3. …immorality of inflicting suffering on animals seriously.

              How can anyone take you seriously after you make a point like this?

              Humans are a top predator. Predators eat other animals. Suffering is a part of life as well as death. No one, or animal, can escape suffering. And how do you know that plants don’t suffer? Therefore, minimizing suffering is all that we can hope to accomplish when slaughtering animals (and plants).

              You can choose to get your protein, iron, and B vitamins elsewhere, but that doesn’t change the fact that homosapiens are meat eaters.

              1. “Humans are a top predator. Predators eat other animals”

                Like it or not, humans have a choice. They can choose to eat meat, or choose not to eat meat. They shouldn’t shy away from the moral consequences of the choices they make.

                1. I choose to eat meat!

                  1. “I choose to eat meat!”

                    The problem is that your choice is hypocritical and frivolous. Or you are morally inferior.

                    1. No it’s not. And no, I’m not.

                      There is nothing wrong with eating meat, and you have yet to make a reasonable case against it.

                      Tonight I’m going to grill some marinated chicken breasts and chop up some veggies for fajitas–in your honor. And I don’t feel guilty, despite your ramblings to the contrary.

                    2. “There is nothing wrong with eating meat”

                      The claim I’m making here is that it is wrong to inflict suffering on animals. You haven’t disputed that. If you agree with me, don’t be afraid to say so.

                    3. We have to eat to survive. You don’t know that chopping up and uprooting plants does not inflict pain and suffering on them. Furthermore, creative destruction inflicts pain and suffering on some people. Pain and suffering are a part of life as well as death.

                      I’m a chronic pain sufferer and likely more familiar with it than you are. I can tell you that suffering–as bad as it is–makes one feel more alive. It grounds a person and reminds them that they are human. So, you picked the wrong person to lecture about suffering.

                      Life is not fair. Life is about survival. Some win, and some lose–that’s life. We can be compassionate and empathetic, but in the end we must survive by destruction or die by destruction. That’s the real choice.

                    4. “Life is not fair. ”

                      Blaming life for the choices you make is the mark of moral cowardice.

                    5. Who’s blaming life? I’m merely making an observation.

                      The choices I’m making, regarding the eating of other animals, is the same choice that most homosapiens have made as far back as we know (circa 100,000 years). You have made a religious choice that has only been available to most people in recent history. In fact, if a person doesn’t compose their vegetarian diet correctly, they will get really sick. They can’t merely stop eating meat–as you hopefully know. Eating meat is a choice that most people will make unless they are prepared to study vegetarian nutrition in significant detail so they can get the protein, vitamin B, iron and other nutrients that are hard to get in vegetables alone.

                      You eat what you want, and I will eat what I want. You can pleasure yourself with your smug, sanctimonious blather about suffering animals but I can still eat what I want–so far.

                    6. “You have made a religious choice that has only been available to most people in recent history”

                      You say that as though it were a criticism. I don’t understand what you are trying to say here.

                      ” In fact, if a person doesn’t compose their vegetarian diet correctly, they will get really sick.”

                      There is risk in every choice we take. Do you eat meat because you figure the risk of a meat free diet is too high for you? Somehow I doubt it. I think hypocrisy and frivolity is why you choose to eat meat.

                      “Eating meat is a choice that most people will make unless they are prepared to study vegetarian nutrition in significant detail so they can get the protein, vitamin B, iron and other nutrients that are hard to get in vegetables alone.”

                      I think you probably overestimate the nutritional knowledge of vegans. For most it’s an ethical stance.

                    7. Veganism/vegetarianism in this country is not an ethical choice, it’s just a lifestyle choice. But for some it’s a smug, sanctimonious lifestyle choice. You seem to be in that latter group because you continue to claim that your lifestyle is better than that of others. When a person crosses that line they go from lifestyle choice to sanctimonia.

                    8. “But for some it’s a smug, sanctimonious lifestyle choice.”

                      Some believe there’s a right and a wrong. Others believe that all is relative. You evidently are among the latter group and believe that every life style choice is as good as the next but are unwilling to admit it.

                    9. “”you are morally inferior.”

                      Wash, rinse, repeat.

                      Basically, you’re the equivalent of a 6yr old that thinks your superman costume actually gives you real super-powers.

                      We’re not laughing because we’re impressed.

                2. No.

                  While humans can decide what they put in their bodies, their bodies also have a say. One can decide that one is a dranovore. despite one’s beliefs and ability to eat drano this will not end well.

                  Vegetarianism never ends well. It is not a sustainable diet for a healthy, intelligent human population. Humans are not designed for a vegetarian diet.

                  1. “Vegetarianism never ends well.”

                    Read the comments carefully. It’s the meat eaters who are spouting nonsense. You included. You would have us believe that a diet of drano is analogous to a diet of vegetables. “Humans are not designed…” What essentialist tripe! And like the rest of the nonsense spouters, you shy away from my central contention, that inflicting suffering on animals is immoral. Prefer to natter on about nonsense like drano and human design instead.

          2. It’s not just the milk. Meat animals don’t care if you kill them. Their owners care, but the animals themselves don’t. This is the reason I’m not against abortion.

            1. “Meat animals don’t care if you kill them.”

              That is an extraordinary claim.

              1. I’d actually agree with that statement. Lesser species lack the mental ability to “care” beyond instinctually caring for their offspring until they go their own way as a natural course of their development. I think it’s logical to say they don’t care if you kill them.

                1. There are many examples from apes, elephants, whales, and dolphins (and probably others I’m not aware of) of animals engaging in behavior that is hard not to identify as mourning.

                  These blanket statements like animals being incapable of possessing rights or being unable to care, even about their own life and suffering, are really narrow minded. That’s not to say the only logical conclusion is vegetarianism or veganism, but it’s worth at least considering what the implications of animal intelligence are.

                  1. Yeah, but those aren’t commonly used for meat. Not for humans, at least.

                    1. “Yeah, but those aren’t commonly used for meat. Not for humans, at least.”

                      Why would that be the determining factor as to whether they had at least some rights?

                2. “Lesser species lack the mental ability to “care” beyond instinctually caring for their offspring until they go their own way as a natural course of their development.”

                  I rescued a dog off the street when I was in Mexico.

                  She couldn’t wait for me to wake up every morning so I could feed her, but she didn’t want to wake me up either. So she would sit there with her face like four inches away from my nose while I slept.

                  Did you know dogs could be considerate?

                  1. “Did you know dogs could be considerate?”

                    This is why i never eat dogs. And always eat Shark Sausage.

            2. This is the reason I’m not against abortion.

              I will admit that braised freshly aborted fetuses are pretty damn delicious.

              1. I thought you Chicagoans preferred them in deep dish.

                1. This is a Catholic town. But if you go to a decent Chinese place and give the right hand signal, you can get them red cooked.

                  1. I thought those were cats they were serving!

      3. she couldn’t grok

        Fuck me; 34 years of voracious reading and I’ve never once stumbled across “grok”. I was certain that it was an accidental autocorrect until I looked it up. Well, my education for the day is complete; I can now commence to drinking.

        1. It’s worth reading Stranger in a Strange Land. Good book.

          1. I couldn’t figure out why you would recommend Heinlein until I came across this blurb on Wikipedia:

            In his fiction, Heinlein coined terms that have become part of the English language, including “grok” and “waldo”, and speculative fiction, as well as popularizing the terms like “TANSTAAFL”, “pay it forward”, and space marine.

            1. You mean other than he wrote some of the best sci-fi of all time?

          2. The weird religious angle was weird. But yes, great book.

    4. I’ve never met a vegan that wasn’t a vapid progressive statist.

      1. The person who is the subject of the article above appears to be exactly that – a vegan who is neither vapid, a progressive nor a statist.

      2. “I’ve never met a vegan that wasn’t a vapid progressive statist.”

        You should see the ones I know in their bikinis.

        Progressive?

        Maybe.

        Statist?

        Probably.

        Vapid?

        No way. Not on the Strand. Not on the beach.

  2. OT – Guess who said this:

    “Look my view is that Lincoln was our worst President not our best. He should ‘be [sic] let the South go.”

    http://thefederalist.com/2015/…..p-slavery/

    1. British Prime Minister Viscount Palmerston?

    2. Finish your work. We’ll talk later. One more thing. Had a dream about you the other night. You screwed me over again! Don’t worry, the feeling doesn’t hang on. (-:

      Top sociopath!

    3. John Wilkes Booth?

      1. Fun Florida Man Fact: one of my ancestors was part of the Lincoln assassination.

        Link

        1. At least they gave him a platform.

        2. Thank you for sharing; I was unaware of this story. That guy seemed like a true badass, down to the “I don’t give a shit” picture pose.

          1. I came accross this dude doing my family tree. In the age of the pistol, he still preferred the person touch of the knife.

            *poors some 40 out*

            1. There is something to be said for tradittion.

              1. That makes me think, Booth did say sic siemper tyranus(sp), I wonder if Powell used a knife because of Brutus.

            2. Ahem, FM

              *poors some 40quart out*

        3. I can’t tell if this man had children. Are you sure you’re a descendant and not just a collateral relative?

        4. I can’t tell if this man had children. Are you sure you’re a descendant and not just a collateral relative?

          1. Sorry, this double posted for some weird reason.

            1. reason

              Drink!

              double posted

              Drink!

          2. He is an uncle. I don’t think he had kids.

    4. Had Lincoln pursued Lerner’s advised course of action, it is unclear when ? or even if ? the U.S. would have been able to eradicate slavery and free the millions of African-Americans from that institution’s bondage.

      Yeah, slavery was ending all over the world, but U.S. White Devils down here would still have people in chains today.
      /derp

      1. So Lincoln should have audited all the pro-slavery people?

      2. Yeah, slavery was ending all over the world, but U.S. White Devils down here would still have people in chains today.

        The cotton gin would have reversed those gains at least for a while. Thank god Lincoln put the south in its (burnt out) place.

  3. OT: The last American to die in the Second World War

    Tuesday marks 70 years since the death of a Pottstown man was part of a moment in history, the end of World War II.

    Twenty-year-old United States Air Army Forces Sgt. Anthony Marchione, fondly known as Tony, was a gunner and photographer’s assistant with the Yotan-based 20th Reconnaissance Squadron. He became the last man to die in combat in World War II, the war whose end is being recalled this weekend on the 70th anniversary.

    Marchione’s memory is being honored in a book by Stephen Harding, “Last to Die,” which outlines the story of Marchione’s service and the circumstances surrounding his death on Aug. 18, 1945.

    1. That sounds depressing.

    2. This is an affront to the 2nd to last guy to die in the war.

    3. If there’s an up side at least he never knew he was the last one.

    4. That was a good age for the U.S. Air Force….before the ranks swelled with cowardly careerists and corporate shitbags.

  4. Rodgers argues that corporations add far more to society by maximizing “long-term shareholder value” than they do by donating time and money to charity.

    I agree with this point, but appearing like you “give back” and “care about the community” can be effective advertising.

    1. It’s not clear to me how one can make sweeping statements like that. Seems like it would depend a lot on how that time and money are donated.

      Regardless, whether you add “more to society” is highly subjective, as not everyone values what is added equally.

    2. the notion that publicly traded companies should always seek to exclusively maximize shareholder value
      .
      In simpleton-speak, greedy corporations will cheerfully kill all their customers for a nickel, which is why we need government to protect us from greedy corporations. No, greedy corporations will bust their ass making damn sure the customer is happy for a nickel. If they can get more nickels by being ‘socially responsible’ because that’s what makes the customer happy, then that’s what they’ll do – and making people happy is pretty much the definition of social responsibility. If they go bankrupt being ‘socially responsible’ then they’re useless to society – which is sort of the exact opposite of being socially responsible.

      1. “In simpleton-speak, greedy corporations will cheerfully kill all their customers for a nickel…”

        Sometimes, short term thinking makes killing the customers for a nickel look attractive.

        If they want to stay in business it is more important to keep the customer base happy.

        1. What if you’re a mortician?

  5. I highly recommend clicking on the reason debate link and checking out the comments. It’s literally 2 comments followed by nothing but porn links.

    1. So you posted a lot to that comment section? :-p

  6. “A high-profile critic of the minimum wage, Obamacare, and the regulatory state, Mackey believes that free markets are the best way not only to raise living standards but also to explore new ways of building community and creating meaning for individuals and society.”

    Something important to learn, here, about marketing ourselves to progressives and others that lean stage left. It isn’t just that so many of them shop at Whole Foods–many of the lefties who work there seem to have bought into the idea that they’re on a holy mission. And yet it all boils down to markets giving people what they want.

    Memo to progressives: if you want fair trade coffee, non-GMO food, electric cars, etc., don’t waste your time on politicians. Look to an entrepreneur for help. We live in a pluralistic democracy, and that means our politicians answer to both environmentalists and polluters, both the sick and big healthcare insurers. 536 federal politicians can’t serve one interest at the expense of 300 million others–but entrepreneurs can and do!

    Look what an entrepreneur like Mackey can accomplish with the help of markets–farmers staying up late at night trying to think up kinder and more environmentally friendly ways to grow and raise produce so they can sell it through Whole Foods at a premium. If only entrepreneurs like Mackey could do the same to serve customers for healthcare and education.

    1. When an important problem needs solving, don’t go to politicians. Solving problems is the province of entrepreneurs, and everything we do to make life harder for entrepreneurs makes it harder for them to solve the problems we care about.

      Lefties act like they understand all of that when they’re physically within the confines of a Whole Foods. Why do they forget it the second they walk out the door?

      1. And yet it all boils down to markets giving people what they want.
        .
        You hit the nail on the head but I’m not sure you understand what you just hit. That’s the whole fucking problem with free markets, they allow people to get what they want instead of what they should want and what they would want if those ignorant baboons were as enlightened as me. Who the hell wants to allow people to get what they want when the little retards think they want Walmart and McDonalds and movies where shit blows up? At heart, the leftists truly despise humanity. They know they gotta disguise their loathing under a veneer of “caring” just to get the dumb shits to vote them into power, but the first order of business once they get the power is to bring on the re-education camps for the ignorant lower orders. Who would need leftists to distribute happiness upon humanity if humanity could just stroll down to the Taco Bell and buy themselves a goddamn big ol’ greasy, nasty pound-and-a-half of happiness for 99 cents at 2 o’clock in the morning if they felt like it?

        1. Memo to progressives: if you want fair trade coffee, non-GMO food, electric cars, etc., don’t waste your time on politicians.
          .
          They’re not “wasting their time” on politicians, because they don’t want fair trade coffee, non-GMO food, electric cars, etc. They want you to want fair trade coffee, non-GMO food, electric cars, etc. and if they can’t make you want those things they’ll settle for being able to cram it down your throat whether you want it or not. And in the end, it’s not really the fair trade coffee and the non-GMO food and the electric cars, it’s the power to cram shit down peoples’ throats that they’re really interested in.
          .
          What the squirrels want is beyond my ken.

          1. “” it’s the power to cram shit down peoples’ throats that they’re really interested in.””

            aye, and there is nothing in libertarianism that lets them scratch the Utopian social-control itch.

            they despise spontaneous order, and want to ‘fix’ it. Like you fix a stray cat.

            1. And yet they hardly get what they want–except for when they shop at Whole Foods. I’m sure they’re really frustrated.

              When they try to get what they want from entrepreneurs like Whole Foods or Tesla, they’re on the right track, and we should encourage that.

              If people want electric skateboards with an 8 mile range that charges on hydroelectric power in an hour or two and will go almost 20 mph and up hill? Don’t go to the government for that.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gka-FXoU5-g

      2. Leftism is not only concerned with progs doing what progs like but outlawing what they do not. An entrepreneur is no help with the second part,

    2. What they promote as “fair trade” is inherently unfair.

      1. Check Jerryskids comment above. That river flows two ways.

        We shouldn’t try to impose what we want on other people, and if some people want fair trade, then the best way for them to get it is to let entrepreneurs sell it to them.

        If fair trade ever predominates in this country, it won’t be because politicians put some law in place. It’ll be because that’s what customers want–and they’re willing to pay a premium for it.

        “Non-GMO” and “organic” doesn’t necessarily make better or more nutritious food, and it may not even be good for the environment. But if that’s what customers want, for whatever reason…

        Some people pay to have their nipples pierced. I don’t understand the attraction myself, but if some people want to pay to have their nipples pierced, then the best way to facilitate that isn’t to get politicians on board with nipple piercing. It’s to let entrepreneurs do their thing.

        I think there’s a reasonable side to talking about what’s rational. If customers shouldn’t want “organic” because it isn’t more nutritious and is bad for the environment, then by all means, we should tell them that. But in the minds of non-libertarians, there’s a fine line between talking about what people should or shouldn’t want–and talking about what the government should or shouldn’t allow. We should try to sell entrepreneurship as a superior alternative to that kind of thinking.

        1. With farm states overrepresented in the Senate, people who are anti-GMO aren’t about to get what they want from the federal government. With consumers well represented in the House of Representatives, you’re probably not going to get fair trade from the federal government. But entrepreneurs are profiting from selling non-GMO, fair trade coffee beans to Whole Foods–and they’re expanding in proportion to the customers who buy their products through places like Whole Foods.

          Whether you should want fair trade is an open question. What you should do to make the world more fair trade, if that’s what you want, isn’t an open question at all–and lobbying Congress is demonstrably ineffective compared to buying fair trade coffee at Whole Foods.

          1. The dirty little secret of government is that it isn’t there to carry out ‘The Will Of The People’, it’s there to subvert the will of the people. People want to buy cheap crap from Walmart, which is why Walmart is so successful and why governement isn’t running Walmart. People do not want to answer the burning question as to why the Greater White-Throated Titty-Twister prefers to eat pecans off the north side of the tree rather than the south, which is why government has to fund that particular research. Far from ‘government is the things we choose to do together’, government is the things we choose not to do together. Any time you see people urging the government to do this, that, or the other, you have to realize that the whole reason they need government to do the particular this, that, or the other is because the people themselves don’t want that particular this, that, or the other. If they wanted it, they would just go get it instead of pestering the government to go get it for them.

            1. “People want to buy cheap crap from Walmart, which is why Walmart is so successful and why governement isn’t running Walmart.”

              People also want organic produce, non-GMO, fair trade produce, and they want inexpensive healthcare for the poor, and they want police that don’t arbitrarily shoot their dogs or beat the shit out of black people–and the freer entrepreneurs are to deliver those products and services, the happier people will be.

              I’m just trying to point out that entrepreneurs aren’t only good at giving libertarians and Republicans what they want. Free market capitalism is and would be excellent at solving the problems that lefties care about, too. Whole Foods shows that. Sometimes (and I’m guilty of this, too), we seem to make like the things progressives care about are unworthy goals–simply because the progressives want to use the coercive power of government to achieve them.

              Progressive goals aren’t evil because they want to use the coercive power of government to achieve them. Progressive means to those goals are evil because they depend on the coercive power of government. You want to make sure more third world coffee farmers are paid a higher price for their beans? Sounds like a worthy goal to me! You should definitely go buy fair trade coffee from Whole Foods, then–and encourage your friends to do likewise.

              1. I got no problem with that at all. The problem is when they use the coercive power of government to punish other people who don’t do what they want. Let’s not cap on fair trade if that isn’t the problem. And third world farmers getting paid extra by willing consumers because they care isn’t a problem.

        2. I want someone to make a really sarcastic label:

          “100% organic – composed of natural stellar-derived carbon compounds”

  7. I hope she eats some meat, for his sake.

  8. “Intellectuals have always disdained commerce” says Whole Foods Market co-founder John Mackey. They “have always sided…with the aristocrats to maintain a society where the businesspeople were kind of kept down.”

    That is because the aristocrats are parasites who feed off of business and fund the intellectuals. I have a hard time imagining a system where this would not be the case. Eliminating the aristocracy is the only solution and that is unlikely.

    1. Napoleon probably never said this, but it’s interesting nonetheless.

      Your meddling in continental affairs, and trying to make yourselves a great military power, instead of attending to the sea and commerce, will yet be your ruin as a nation. You were greatly offended with me for having called you a nation of shopkeepers. Had I meant by this, that you were a nation of cowards, you would have had reason to be displeased; even though it were ridiculous and contrary to historical facts; but no such thing was ever intended. I meant that you were a nation of merchants, and that all your great riches, and your grand resources arose from commerce, which is true. What else constitutes the riches of England. It is not extent of territory, or a numerous population. It is not mines of gold, silver, or diamonds. Moreover, no man of sense ought to be ashamed of being called a shopkeeper. But your prince and your ministers appear to wish to change altogether l’esprit of the English, and to render you another nation; to make you ashamed of your shops and your trade, which have made you what you are, and to sigh after nobility, titles and crosses; in fact to assimilate you with the French… You are all nobility now, instead of the plain old Englishmen.

      1. I want to see a presidential candidate come out and say the business of America is business.

        1. I would vote for him except that my write-in candidate of choice is William Henry Harrison. If every president, every politician, were more like William “I’ll Just Sit Quietly In The Corner And Die” Henry Harrison this would be a much better world. (Although a dead Coolidge is just as good as a dead Harrison and a live Coolidge would be better than anybody we’ve got now.)

          1. Not doing is better than doing. Undoing is better than not doing.

      2. Like you said, probably not real. I don’t think diamonds were very highly valued during the Napoleonic era.

    2. Eliminating the aristocracy is the only solution and that is unlikely.

      One should hope it remains unlikely, as every time the aristocracy has been eliminated throughout history, the results were disastrous. Most power is social in nature; the aristocracy wouldn’t exist so pervasively if it didn’t fulfill some social need of people. It is one thing to keep the aristocracy in check now and again as needed; it’s another thing entirely to eliminate them.

      It is wiser to examine the reasons why societies develop aristocracies and develop ways to exploit this reality. If greed can be functionally adapted into a driving impulse for the betterment of all, then so can any other intrinsic human motivation.

      1. Good point. I didn’t mean we should eliminate them with woodchippers, but rather as you say, keep them in check. Of course, if we changed the system enough to essentially neuter the political class the Obamas, Pelosis, and Grahams wouldn’t just disappear. Being the sociopaths that they are they would simply gravitate to whatever the greatest positions of power exist.

        I was wrong, you are correct. They real solution is to have a system wherein everyone has the opportunity to be successful and create wealth for themselves and incentives for evil people to do beneficial things.

        We started out as the closest thing to that that has ever existed and it has been wildly successful.

        1. One of the greatest time-sinks of the old aristocracy in this country was philanthropy. Having already genuinely improved the world, they spent the back half of their lives pouring money into vanity projects. Think Rockefeller and all those libraries. The problem started when the government got involved. Philanthropy went from a personal endeavor to a religion to the state religion. This set in motion the process by which useless functionaries like Obama, Pelosi, etc. could be elevated to positions of undue power and influence. It conflated the act of appearing generous above productivity and betterment. And it’s easy to be generous with other people’s money, especially if you have no shame.

          1. A few weeks back Jon Stewart was foaming at the mouth about those GOP bastards in the Senate doing some sort of political jousting over a bill that included funding for the 9/11 first responders needs. He couldn’t get (or pretended at any rate) how politicians coud be so evil as to hold up a bill giving money to such noble people as the NYPD and the NYFD and the other NYC rescue services. My thought was – why is it the federal government’s business to be giving money to the public servants of NYC? Why isn’t that NYC’s problem? Now, I can certainly see an argument that 9/11 was an act of war aimed at the US and not specifically at NYC and therefore there’s a justification for the US to deal with the damage, but that’s nowhere in the equation for Stewart as far as I could tell. His argument was simply, there’s some people who need some help, it’s the government’s job to help people. Same as when a hurricane hits Florida or an earthquake hits California or a tornado hits Kansas or a blizzard hits Minnesota. How did we get from the self-evident truth of “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men” to “the purpose of government is to help people”? The purpose of government is to protect people in their pursuit of happiness, not to pick their pocket, go buy a bag of happiness, eat half of it and and bring the rest back and say “Here, I got you a gift”.

            1. It’s very telling that people act as if NYC cops and firemen don’t have health plans or death benefits.

    3. Stossel, in response to an interview question about the difference in reaction he gets from conservatives and liberals, said that he doesn’t think wealth is the thing liberals hate about the rich. Aristocrats of yesteryear were incredibly wealthy, and many liberals supported them. Stossel didn’t say why he thought liberals supported those aristocrats. I think your comment is why.

      1. There are primarily two factions on the left, presently and historically: the ivory tower and the mob. They share nothing in common, practically speaking, except envy. The liberals Stossel knows and is talking about are the ivory tower types. Major metro areas like DC, New York, urban California, etc. are chock full of them. They steal from the productive, taking a lot for themselves, and giving the rest to the mob. As long as everybody is fat and happy, the system keeps moving along. The problem arises when the productive stop being so, typically because they are being too heavily fleeced, and the mob starts eating the ivory tower, too.

        For the ivory tower, the rich will invite you to their parties while secretly hating you, the mob will hang you unceremoniously while openly hating you.

      2. The left is obsessed with wealth. Their barometer for “equality” is not opportunity, fulfillment, happiness or quality of life, it’s money. Women should make the same as men ignores the idea that some women, and men for that matter, will choose to make less in order to work less or have a less stressful job. There is always a trade off which is why communism can never work, Who’s going to work more and take on more responsibility for the same wage as a burger flipper or whatever. I would take a more physical job to stay in shape if I could make what I make sitting at a computer all day.

    4. “””Intellectuals have always disdained commerce” says Whole Foods Market co-founder John Mackey. They “have always sided…with the aristocrats to maintain a society where the businesspeople were kind of kept down.”””

      So were Adam Smith, Robert Conquest, David Hume, Milton Friedman and Hayek not intellectuals?

      1. I’m confused by the common use of intellectual, too. Thomas Sowell described intellectual as one who makes their living through ideas, but then goes on to denounce them even though he is himself obviously an intellectual.

        For now, until I find a better explanation, I believe that there are some intellectuals with their feet firmly planted in the real world, but that most are critical–if not opposed–to commerce and entrepreneurship.

        1. It seems pretty ridiculous for libertarians to denounce intellectuals when our entire political philosophy is based on ideas that were invented by intellectuals. We’re not a populist movement, we’re an intellectual one.

          Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Hume, Smith, Friedman, Hayek, John Locke, Robert Conquest, Bastiat, Rand, Mises…and those are just the Brits, the Americans, one Frenchman and some Austrians. There are a lot more people who are sort of tangentially related to libertarian ideas like Voltaire.

          I think a lot of people today use ‘intellectual’ as shorthand for ‘anyone who works at a university,’ which is why a lot of very dumb, legitimately anti-intellectual people get called intellectuals because they’re idiots who just happen to have tenure. But if you’re using the word intellectual to mean ‘free-thinker who comes up with ideas,’ then obviously intellectuals are very important to libertarianism.

          1. Agreed. Intellectuals are essential to a modern society or civilization. I would even go so far as to call some of the posters here as intellectuals for their breadth of knowledge and ability to put that knowledge into words that others can learn from. Nonetheless, there are many pseudo-intellectuals that give the term a bad name. Noam Chomsky comes to mind.

            Speaking of Noam Chomsky reminds me that Sowell’s point was that some (many) intellectuals profess opinions in areas beyond their narrowed expertise. So the problem seems to be one of matching the intellectual with their area of expertise; taking them seriously in that area; and ignoring them outside of it.

          2. Hayek in his writings described the perverse incentives of the intellectual class to support top down control of society. They can be a member of the class and be critical of it.

        2. Milton Friedman would not dare offer an opinion about linguistics. Professional courtesy, you know. Noam Chomsky doesn’t return the favor.

  9. Just for a goof. From the Derpbook feed of something called “Department of Homeland Safetyness”.

    1. Bernie always looks like he just told the biggest lie you can think of and is amused that so many people believe it.

      1. There is a good reason he looks like that.

        1. I thought it might be twitchy bowel, but the expression is similar.

          1. Twitchy bowel? No, I think that is Rick Santorum.

  10. It’s no wonder “intellectuals” frequently disdain capitalism, but I don’t think it’s due to an outright conspiracy with the aristocracy, or feelings of jealously (although there is some of that). It’s just a simple matter of stroking the cock that feeds you, as is the case of a lot of intellectual studies and their relationship to the government.

    In other words, it’s obvious why a professor of feminist sociology with a focus on vaginal studies and a federal research grant thinks that capitalism just doesn’t work.

    Today, intellectuals who are actually worth something aren’t known as intellectuals. They’re known as engineers, architects, builders, creators, etc. intellectual. As a term, USA almost exclusively used as a substitute for “worthless nerd.”

    1. Intellectuals today are the modern equivalent of the medieval clergy. They earn their living by providing validation and succor to the governing class.

    2. It’s been like that for a long time. The aristocracy studied whatever they pleased because they didn’t need to earn money, they stole it. Often if someone of less wealth had a particular talent and good gain favor with the wealthy class that could find a patron to bankroll their studies or work even it served no commercial purpose.

    3. The intellectual class is vital to any society. You need people who think, who critically examine and create ideas. The intellectual class in North America has been terrible at its job for generations.

      1. ^This. Intellectuals are massively important, Western intellectuals in modern times just happen to suck.

        If America had nothing but shitty mechanics for some reason, it would be stupid to go on an anti-mechanic diatribe just because ours are terrible.

        1. It would make sense to go on a tirade against American mechanics, at that point.

        2. “Intellectuals are massively important”

          “Awwwww? But I wanted to shoot all the people wearing glasses”

          /Khmer Rouge

          1. Ironically, that sentiment was the product of intellectuals.

            1. Ahem. “Interrecturals”

        3. But who counts as a member of the “intellectual class”? The questionably attired scientist who lands a probe on a comet a billion miles away, or the leader of the twitter mob raging at the iniquities of his shirt? The engineer who helps keep the internet running, or the adjunct professor explaining the meaning of micro-aggressions on MSNBC.

          1. Engineers are decidedly not intellectuals. They can rarely talk about REAL intellectuals like Foucault and Derrida.

      2. The intellectual class is vital to any society. You need people who think, who critically examine and create ideas.

        Bullshit.

        Society needs entrepreneurs, inventors, artists scientists etc. No society needs people that generate crappy philosophies which are then forced onto others.

  11. OT =

    Indonesia Airlines: making air-travel feel like an adventure again

  12. Press hypocrisy, example #N:
    Lefty rag SF Chron does puff-piece on lefty grocery coop (mostly paywall, but you get the idea)
    “S.F.’s Rainbow Grocery: a counterculture success story”
    http://www.sfchronicle.com/foo…..ate-result
    The part that doesn’t get mentioned until several paragraphs into the story regards the volunteer status of some of the earliest employees; strictly verbotten now that SF has a $15/hr M/W, which was backed by the Chron since ‘fairness’ and stuff.

    1. I stopped going there when they began boycotting Israeli products a dozen years ago.

      1. You know who else hated money grubbing Jews?

      2. “…they began boycotting Israeli products…”

        I did not know that. Do they stone gay customers in solidarity with the muslims?

        1. They don’t go that far, AFAIK, but they got into the whole “The Israelis are being mean by defending themselves too much from the Palestinians who are trying to kill them” nonsense.

  13. OT: some good news. Britain’s government will likely start to over-ride idiot local governments that don’t appreciate fracking. This is a body-blow to the anti-frack movement.

    http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/13…..untry.html

  14. Speaking of our dire need for morecentral planning

    Jargowsky notes that concentrated poverty is not inevitable, but rather the result of “choices” our society makes. To deal with it, he suggests two broad changes. On the one hand, he urges higher levels of government to implement controls over suburban development that can ensure that new housing construction is in line with the growth of a metro population. On the other, he suggests that these controls also ensure that new housing development matches the income distribution in the metropolitan area as a whole. “To some, this suggestion may seem like a massive intervention in the housing market,” Jargowsky writes. “In fact, exclusionary zoning is already a massive intervention in the housing market that impedes a more equitable distribution of affordable housing.”

    1. The market will take care of this issue quite well. I’m not against zoning, per se, but getting the government out of housing will solve most of these problems.

  15. “A more equitable distribution of affordable housing” = “Get these welfare cases out of the cities where us hip people want to live, and into the suburbs, to afflict those evil white Republicans who thought they could escape crime by fleeing the cities.”

  16. In addition to these critical housing reforms, I would add three things. First, we not only need to build more housing, but to build affordable housing in increasingly unaffordable urban centers?something that is in line with Jargowsky’s suggested reforms. Second, we need to act on the income side of the affordability equation by raising the minimum wage to reflect local living costs, while working hard to upgrade the wages and working conditions of the nation’s more than 60 million poorly paid service workers. And third, we need to invest in transit to connect disadvantaged areas in both the urban center and the suburbs to areas of jobs and opportunity.

    In short, concentrated poverty is deepening. Far more troubling than simple income inequality, our nation is being turned into a patchwork of concentrated advantage juxtaposed with concentrated disadvantage. The incomes and lives of generation after generation are being locked into terrifyingly divergent trajectories. Now more than ever, America is in need of new 21st century urban policy.

    What this country needs is more concrete tenements. That will make our nation great again

    1. “Project Cabrini?Green is a go!”

      Second, we need to act on the income side of the affordability equation by raising the minimum wage to reflect local living costs, while working hard to upgrade the wages and working conditions of the nation’s more than 60 million poorly paid service workers.

      “I’m devising a heavily automated and human-free future for the service industry.”

    2. build affordable housing in increasingly unaffordable urban centers

      After you subsidize their housing in expensive places, how are the poor supposed to afford anything there?

  17. Somehow I expected this comment section would have a lot more arguing over whether or not the “nothing could be farther from the truth” should be “nothing could be further from the truth”. Personally, I could care less about such nonsense irregardless of whether or not anybody else does.

    1. What you said.

    2. If you mean that you couldn’t care less about the influence of intellectuals, then I beg to differ. Intellectuals exert quite a lot of influence–not only on thinking people, but on non-thinking people who get their ideas from friends and family members who do follow intellectuals.

      1. Perhaps the joke literally flew right over your head.

        1. Whoooosh. Sorry, missed that one.

    3. “”irregardless””

      you did sumthin that there and I done seen it

  18. God DAMN it’s hot.

    Oh, it’s August. Right.

    1. It’s GLOBAL WARMING, you denier!

  19. Question for mtrueman and any other vegan: if the “infliction of suffering on animals” is the reason you’re opposed to consuming animal products, what if you happened upon a deer that had been mauled by a bobcat? Would it be moral to eat it if it were killed by another animal? What of you hit it with your Nissan Leaf because it ran in front of you?

    If you wouldn’t eat it, doesn’t that make you a hypocrite for not eating that food and preserving the vegetables you’d normally eat for another, less fortunate, person

    1. Be nice to the vegans, sloop. You know that they don’t have the energy to fight you.

    2. “Question for mtrueman and any other vegan”

      I can’t speak for ‘any other vegan.’ If you want to eat road kill, go for it. I know a couple who crossed Australia on a diet of the very ample road side critters on offer. Some vegans will differ.

      “If you wouldn’t eat it, doesn’t that make you a hypocrite”

      Maybe. Being a hypocrite is the easiest thing in the world.

      1. “Being a hypocrite is the easiest thing in the world.”

        And you and every other vegan are well practiced at it.

        1. “And you and every other vegan are well practiced at it.”

          You might be surprised to discover that even non vegans can be hypocrites. You read that right. Even non vegans!

          1. “You might be surprised to discover that even non vegans can be hypocrites. You read that right. Even non vegans!”

            And pretentious bullshit is exactly what I expect in response.
            How is that ‘supplement’, vegan?

            1. “And pretentious bullshit is exactly what I expect in response”

              That’s what you call pretentious? Glib maybe, but pretentious?

              “How is that ‘supplement’, vegan?”

              What supplement? Try for clarity over brevity.

              1. “That’s what you call pretentious? Glib maybe, but pretentious?”
                Glib?
                Stupid, certainly. Pretentious absolutely. The stuff of an dimwwit attempting to appear glib at best.
                Is that OK?

                “What supplement? Try for clarity over brevity.”
                So not only are you ignorant, you’re now going to make a point of it?
                “Vegan B12 Supplement – Low-Priced Vegan B12 Supplement.”
                Bing is our friend!

                1. “{So not only are you ignorant, you’re now going to make a point of it?”

                  Nothing wrong with not knowing something, or even admitting it. Oh, I know, How pretentious! Fact is I have no interest in or desire for dietary supplements. Damn! That was pretentious too. I just can’t help my pretentious self.

  20. In keeping with todays “MEAT IS MURDER” theme….

    Everyone should download and play, “Chickendemic” = the first game that simulates what would happen if zombie chickens tried to destroy humanity

    “Due to the massive demand and poverty, local farmers have decided to please the CFC fast food chain using means of evil. Unfortunately, they created something diabolical.
    The attack began that very night, when nobody was expecting it.
    Thankfully, there was a soldier. A soldier, who was deemed insane for calling chickens creatures from hell. But here and now, he was prepared to face them, and save the entire world in his glorious helicopter.”

  21. I wonder how they spin this. It is totally illegal and Sullivan ought to start holding people in contempt.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com…..nts-state/

    1. There is a person within the state department whose entire job is to ensure the ability to retain and retrieve all documents / communications. and that person….

      (“John F. Hackett. Acting Director, Office of Information Programs and Services.”)

      … is only now “discovering” that top officials in the state department were routinely flouting communications and document management protocols.

      “Mr. Hackett also said he has no way of knowing what else might be out there, and has to trust the two women and their lawyers to turn over what they have.”

      This is why Government spends years developing laws regarding records-retention, and hires people like him to ensure these protocols are enforced….

      ….To find out years after the fact that Cabinet-level officials and their staff were ignoring every rule in the book…. and then to simply rely on a “honor system” when asking them if, hey, you know… uh, could you maybe *think* about complying? if its not too much trouble.

      I’m going to take a wild guess that the guy was given the job by clinton, specifically to do his best Sergeant Shultz routine in case anyone ever came knocking.

  22. Because of Whole Foods’ trendy customer base and because Mackey is himself a vegan and champions collaboration between management and workers, it’s easy to mistake Mackey for a progressive left-winger.

    Can’t imagine why… anyone clever enough to make stupid people overpay for smug food can’t be anything other than a kkkapitalist.

  23. I occasionally shop at the Wholefoods near us, but for a more upscale market, I like Fresh Market better, which is also near us.

    The one thing I don’t like about Wholefoods is that it seems to be a magnet for douchebag hipsters. I’ve never been in there that I didn’t want to punch a hipster and then tape the mouth shut of his shrill harpy wife or gf.

    If most of the people I see shopping at Wholefoods knew that Mackey is a libertarian, they would drop dead on the spot. Hey, that gives me an idea for my next visit…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.