Watch Matt Welch Talk Black Lives Matter at 11 a.m. on MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry


Beginning at 11 a.m. I will be on MSNBC's panel-discussion show Melissa Harris-Perry to talk about the backlash to Black Lives Matter, the sporadically increasing crime rates in American cities; stuff like that.

NEXT: Has Bitcoin Already Been Co-opted by Wall Street?

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’ll pass ,I can’t stand to even look at that women.

    1. Yes, she does radiate enough unsavoriness for an entire group.

    2. Is she the national TV news celebrity with the speech impediment?

      1. yeth

    1. What HM said

  2. I’m watching The Thing on SyFy, do I gotta watch the thing on MSNBC?

    1. “I know you gentleman have been through a lot, but when you find the time, I’d rather not spend the entire winter tied to this fucking couch.”

      1. Little did he know that the federal government had seen fit to purchase not one, but two couches for the Antarctic thingamabobber exploration team.

      1. It is superior to clicking through on any “The Next Step In Evolution” ad, for sure.

    2. “They’re not Swedish, Mac, they’re Norwegian.”

  3. We seem to be in agreement.

  4. By giving these fringe groups so much media coverage you give them an air of credibility they don’t warrant. As for Donald Trump why not report on the fact he routinely claims to be buying off politicians. Does this really sound like someone that is part of the solution or has he been part of the major problem of the corrupting our government by big business. If a little fish like Trump can buy our officials then just imagine what the multinationals are getting away with.

    1. Trump’s a crony and inherited his business.I also do not believe he has a billion dollars cash to spend on his run with out selling assets.He also doesn’t own some of the property his name is on.He’s a fake,a great onw he would say.

      1. “Look! This money comes right off of him! He’s a PHONY!”

    2. Trump will cut out the middleman.

    3. Yeah, people like Donald Trump are the problem. If they’d just stop bribing government officials, then those good men and women could actually help the little man.

  5. Thanks for taking one for the team, Matt.

    But no.

  6. MHP just quoted Ayn Rand and Max Weber. While lisping horribly.

    1. If Welch doesn’t appear in the next 5 minutes I’m going to puke. Its one big ego-stroke where they juggle $5-words about “black bodies” and “narrative discourse”, steadfastly refusing to mention that there’s a thing called “crime” that plays a role in the equation.

      1. Did they mention one little bit about this whole movement being a cheap reboot of the Black Liberation Army? A good overview of that bunch can be found in Bryan Burrough’s “Days of Rage.”

        1. no. She mentioned the panthers in her opening on the topic.

          1. Ha, they were a lukewarm joke compared to the BLA.

  7. Matt, it is a brave thing you do, trying to reach out to all twelve of the people that watch MHP.

    1. Well, to be fair.. 9 of those 12 are pundits from other agencies looking for material for their own programs.. generally to rip on her for the non-stop parade of tedious stupidity marching from her gaping maw..

  8. I’m glad Matt’s not just preaching to the choir. …not that he has a choir. Half the time, the libertarian commenters here at Hit & Run are rougher on him than Melissa Harris-Perry is when he goes on her show.

    Oh, and speaking of the media, this exchange between Hans Rosling and a Danish journalist is likely to make the news itself over the next few days.


    Rosling is saying the same things about life in the developing world that Bailey is saying about the environment. Rosling totally debunks the idea that the developing world is circling the drain. He says that girls are being educated, women are using contraception, birth rates are dropping, people are being vaccinated, diseases are being eliminated, governments are improving and stabilizing–it’s the end of doom as we know it, and Rosling feels fine!

    1. His comments in that exchange are about why the news media focuses only on the ugliness out there, and he suggests it’s because the bigger picture good things happen slowly and the news media wants to focus on things that happen quickly. That may be a contributing factor, but I think the ideological biases of journalists in West have more to do with it. Our politicians never want to let a crisis go to waste, and journalists have come to imagine that their purpose in life is to manufacture crises. …as if you can’t get people to do or change anything unless they think there’s a crisis anymore.

      It’s the same phenomenon we see in reporting on climate change, gun crime in America, etc. We cannot trust the media to give us any sense of proportion.

      Their focus is narrow and intended to provoke a sense of urgency . Hearing that gun deaths, for instance, are declining or that they’re less common than death by poisoning doesn’t make anybody want to get off the sofa and do anything. It makes them want to change the channel and find something more exciting to watch–maybe something about Boko Haram or ISIS!

      1. Ken, those are some great points. There are some truly amazing things happening in the developing world regarding combating disease and the rising of living standards, and that doesn’t get much focus. Among the usual media driven reasons (if it bleeds it leads) I think it has to do with this pernicious dislike of development because consumption is bad, environment, argle, bargle, etc. It’s truly myopic.

        1. We get the same kind of distortions on other topics.

          How many people know that greenhouse gas emissions have been dropping precipitously in the United States–and are expected to continue to do so.

          Never mind if they know WHY greenhouse gas emission are dropping–how many of them even know that greenhouse gas emissions HAVE dropped and ARE dropping?

          For sooooooooooo many people out there, it’s the exact opposite of what we expect. Their positions are not simply a function of which facts they choose to believe. Which facts they choose to believe, however, are a function of which positions they’ve staked out ahead of time.

          1. Some people like to wail about doom and how things are getting worse, others see the world more optimistically. We see it here at Reason too. The writers tend to be optimistic types (Postrel wrote a whole book about this) while others tend to be the Trump like ‘this country has been brought so low, we don’t have victories anymore!). To some degree it’s probably just fundamental personality types.

      2. As de Tocqueville pointed out a long time ago, you remove the mountain and suddenly the foothills come into focus. There’s a hell of a lot more ‘big problems’ in the world simply because as you remove the biggest problems the bar for what’s a big problem gets lowered. And journalists get paid more for discovering new and heretofore under-reported big problems than for reporting that there really aren’t too many more new and under-reported big problems. Case in point would be the lack of educational opportunities for women in some Muslim societies – once upon a time there were no educational opportunities for anybody anywhere and most people were too busy trying not to starve to death or die from accidentally drinking the same water they were crapping in to notice the lack.

        1. It is possible for things to get better in some regards/regions and worse in others.

          While the 3rd world may be improving, the US is rapidly becoming a statist hellhole.

          1. “The US is rapidly becoming a statist hellhole.”

            I’d say the future isn’t as bright as it used to be.

            1. The future’s so bright…

              (Takes off sunglasses)

              …we don’t need these anymore!

              1. In a few years we will have a musical called “Barack Obama: Turn Off The Dark”.

    2. Yep. Its similar to crime rates in the developed world. They’ve fallen by half, but most people believe they’re rising.

      I’ve repeatedly tried to get doom-mongers to read the copenhagen consensus, or at least grasp its concept, and they revile the notion that the world isn’t in perma-crisis caused by capitalist excesses. Fingers in ears, nyah nyah nyah….

      1. It’s Plato’s noble lie inverted.

        His idea was that it was better if people believed what their leaders said was true–regardless of whether it was actually true.

        People today are internalizing that–almost like a religious conviction. I’m going to believe this is true–no matter what–because me believing in this thing is more important than the truth. And I have to get other people to believe in it, too.

        The reactions we get to violating their beliefs are similar to how, you know, reformation era Catholics reacted to Protestantism, too.

        Protestant: “It says right here in the Bible that the Pope is wrong about that”.

        Catholic: “What makes you think you’re qualified to understand the Bible? That’s why it shouldn’t be printed in a language you can read. You’re so uneducated!

    3. We know MHP is irredeemable. Welch, on the other hand, we have high expectations for.

  9. “one of these 4 is unlike the other…”

  10. Its one big ego-stroke where they juggle $5-words about “black bodies” and “narrative discourse”,

    Business as usual, then.

    1. Her viewers don’t like surprises…

      1. I talked to her viewers. Both of them agreed with that.

        1. You could get them to stop drooling long enough to answer questions?

          Brave man.

          I bet they asked for cake.

  11. The pink/blue was a poor choice. That’s the gay-marriage ensemble. Police oppression of black people requires something less sunny and fun.

    There’s also the little problem (unrelated to the fashion choices) of ‘how does the white guy fit into this panel’…. although Matt does actually sound the most coherent of everyone when given the chance to speak. He does people the favor of putting things in context.

    MHP is such an awful host. She’s like a shitty college teacher who poorly paraphrases people, dilutes the discussion rather than focusing it on any clear point.

    1. Actually, she’s a shitty college professor.

  12. Apologies if these have already been read and discussed here already, but I have to say these two analyses of the County Clerk in KY situation are remarkably insightful and thorough compared to most media coverage. I know they’ve changed my mind on the subject. The first is from law professor Marty Lederman from a blog called ‘Balkinization.’

    The second is from noted libertarian law prof Eugene Volokh from the Volokh Conspiracy:

    (Reason says my links are too long at 50+ characters, but if you go to the main VC site here


    and scroll down to the story ‘When does your religion legally excuse you from doing part of your job?’ you get the story, ditto if you go to the main Balkinization site here: http://balkin.blogspot.com/ and scroll down to the story ‘Does anyone have any idea what’s happening with marriages in Rowan County, Kentucky?’)

    They’ve moved me to the position that while Davis is being unreasonable by thinking that her name being on the marriage license itself, even when processed and signed by someone else, constitutes her ‘approval’ of the potential subsequent marriage, that the real ‘bad guy’ here is the state of Kentucky. Davis asked the state of Kentucky to simply change the law so that her name wouldn’t have to appear on the form. That seems like a very reasonable accommodation to make, and it should have been done.

    1. It’s funny that everyone is so focused on stopping her from violating not a law, but an interpretation of a SCotUS decision. Yet Obama, the DoJ, Mayor DeBlasio, City of SF, etc. all break actual laws as written, or choose not to enforce them on a daily basis and nothing happens. Are any of those treasonous assholes being hauled into court, found in contempt and perp walked to a jail cell? Nope. Only this chick. This isn’t about the law in any sense. This is strictly about the pros showing who is boss and that christians better not make a fuss.

  13. I’m not watching, but; MHP generally leaps in to frantically steer the discussion away from any actually interesting or coherent arguments which might unintentionally arise.
    Her job is to keep the narrative on track.

    1. yep. pretty much what i was saying. she doesn’t actually ask questions… she simply takes what people say and regurgitates it in a narrative-reinforcing-froth, than passes the ball to someone new with the expectation they will continue the process.

      there’s no real dialogue, no consistent point, and never does anyone muddy up the narrative with “facts” for too long. (the ‘stats’ person closed with saying that data on police violence, etc, is ultimately unreliable because it fails to capture myriad ‘microagressions’ that people endure.)

      I only ever witness MSNBC when Matt shows up, but it never fails to blow me away how silly they are.

      1. I used to watch the Sunday political shows, but after a while you notice that you know exactly what everyone is going to say; you can see that no one is listening, and is just waiting for their turn to parrot their side’s talking points.

        I used to try to see how long I could last watching Olberman or Hannity. They never said anything new or interesting. I do think the Fox shows are more entertaining because they tend to have equal amounts of lefties and righties talking past eachother. MSNBC usually just has a bunch of lefties smelling eachothers’ farts.

        Re: MHP, I watched her once and was shocked that somebody that dumb, who couldn’t talk, could make a good living being a talk show host.

        1. I used to try to see how long I could last watching Olberman or Hannity.

          I do the same with Hannity’s radio show. He comes on after Rush, who I can usually tolerate for a longer period of time. Hannity seldom makes it 10 minutes.

            1. Radio is the radiation (wireless transmission) of electromagnetic energy through space.[n 1] The biggest use of radio waves is to carry information, such as sound, by systematically changing (modulating) some property of the radiated waves, such as their amplitude, frequency, phase, or pulse width. When radio waves strike an electrical conductor, the oscillating fields induce an alternating current in the conductor. The information in the waves can be extracted and transformed back into its original form.

              Damn kidz!

            2. An electric “noise box”, used mostly to relay commercials.. mostly..

          1. I listen to Rush during lunch sometimes. I generally like his show, though I have to turn it off when he goes into copsucker mode. He actually defended the cops in the Garner murder.
            I caught some of Hannity last week, and he was bragging about how he’s an expert in martial arts and will FUK YOU UP if you mess with him. It was so unintentionally funny.

            1. He is actually pretty close to his black belt. As someone who taken martial arts, I can say that it is an achievement.

  14. I’m done. Their “statistics” guest asserted that the overwhelming range micro-aggressions remained uncounted. Science, meet narrative.

    The word “crime” has not been used once in a half-hour of discussion about Policing.

    1. Because the discussion is not about crime, which is kind of a constant for police, but about how they respond to it?

      1. Perhaps the discussion ought to be about how “microaggressions” are a crock of shit?

        1. Your refusal to acknowledge microaggressions means you are microaggressing.

        2. I’m not sure it totally is in this context. If what they are talking about is the way some of those police officers talk to blacks they pull over or encounter, than I’d count that as one of the few valid examples of a ‘microaggression’ or an act of borderline aggression that doesn’t rise to the level of physical aggression (and yes, I’d think they wouldn’t be ‘counted’ in any real way and if we’re trying to understand how frustrated blacks, or any group, might be re police encounters I’d think they matter big time).

          1. Microaggressions are based upon the aggressor’s perceptions. So, any encounter with police, or potential encounter with police, could be be full of microaggressions.

            Microggressions are a rationalization for any adverse reaction to police contact.

            1. I’ve certainly read about some goofy descriptions and applications of the idea of ‘microaggressions’ that are indefensible. I guess I’m trying to be charitable and take a more sane definition of the idea, like this one from Wiki: “brief, everyday exchanges that send denigrating messages to certain individuals because of their group membership” and ask, are there examples of this in the context of police encounters that might be said to actually matter re: minority-police relations? And I think, sure, if you’ve got a cop rudely insulting a citizen they come into contact with in these ways, absolutely.

              1. Police can treat anyone poorly, and I have no doubt police are disrespectful to black people. They are almost certainly disrespectful to poor, white people. That is not in dispute.

                Using the term “microaggressions,” a term which can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean, is a pathetic explanation for any behavior.

                1. I’d be happy with just using the term ‘rude, unprofessional behavior that should get a cop reprimanded or fired’ instead.

            2. This is what makes anecdotal experience about ‘oppression’ or whatever almost entirely unreliable. Maybe every time a cop pulls you over, you think, ‘oh, of course, because I’m black;’ but you don’t think about the hundreds of times they don’t pull you over, nor do you likely notice the white people being pulled over by the side of the road.

              Once one is familiar with the narrative, one filters one’s experiences and disproportionately ‘notices’ events that reconfirm the narrative (or whichever narrative is most convenient for them) and ignores the ones that do not.

      2. Yeah. i have no use for the cops anymore. Anything I actually need them for my local PD announced they won’t respond to anymore. Because of budgets and money. Even though I noticed how they got to hire more cops on several occasions in recent years and just got a shitload of all new decked out cop Explorers.

        They’re just lazy ADHD riddled adrenalin junkies living out their frustrations and fantasies on my dime.

    2. You’re much braver than I. I mustered enough courage to watch the Richman-Block thing on Lucy’s blog last night. As silly as that was, I’m quite sure it was lucud and coherent in comparison to that crazy chick.

      1. Lucid too

      2. It was so much fluff. I’m assuming what the guy meant by thick or thin libertarian is what we refer to as small l or big L. But how he’s trying to say there’s no right or left is just crazy. Of course there is and the left want a big central government to control the economy, which is not libertarian and won’t work.

        1. I always understood ‘thin’ libertarianism to be ‘libertarianism is about one question: is there government coercion? Any other question is irrelevant’ while ‘thick’ libertarianism goes on to topics like, should we also celebrate or work towards social changes that make people living however they want more likely (so something like social boycotts against organizations that are seen as discriminatory towards gays or something).

        2. I’m assuming what the guy meant by thick or thin libertarian is what we refer to as small l or big L.

          Not really…or I maybe I just misunderstand capital L vs. lowercase (Big L is the LP proper but little l is anything liberty-related..like an-caps, libertarian-leaning Repubs, etc., right?). Anyway, thin libertarianism argues that libertarianism is just the NAP. Full Stop. On the other hand, thick libertarianism argues that the NAP entails a certain set of cultural values. Block, if I remember correctly, is pretty much in the “thin” school; whereas, someone like Rodrick T. Long and the other “bleeding hearts” are in the “thick” school.

          1. Anyway, thin libertarianism argues that libertarianism is just the NAP

            That’s bullshit, you can’t just ignore the fact that the left are trying to turn a free market into a command and control economy, and they’re having great success. You can’t be a libertarian and not take a stand on economic matters. Free markets is very much a part of libertarian philosophy.

            1. I don’t think you’re getting that the thin libertarians are the ones most likely to draw the line, and quite strictly, at government coercion schemes. They’re adamantaly against them because they all involve NAP violations, they just say that that’s where libertarianism stops, and that any ‘social campaigns’ to ‘make people more free socially’ by removing things like prejudices are none of the libertarian’s business.

            2. You can’t be a libertarian and not take a stand on economic matters. Free markets is very much a part of libertarian philosophy.

              I believe you mentioned something to the same effect yesterday and I was too drunk to argue.

              I’m confused, tell me why the NAP doesn’t apply to economic matters?

              Free markets comply with the NAP. SO libertarianism IS just the NAP. No?

          2. Roderick Long has contributed things to the BHL blog, but doesn’t identify as a BHL if I remember correctly. The BHLs aren’t really ever anarchists and see roles for the government to battle certain societal problems, Long definitely doesn’t fall into that category.

            1. Roderick Long has contributed things to the BHL blog, but doesn’t identify as a BHL if I remember correctly.

              I was under the impression that he did identify as such, but I can’t find any evidence either way. But you do raise a good point concerning BHL and anarchism.

              In looking for Long’s stance on BHL, I did come across a debate between him and Block on Thick vs. Thin.

      3. I plan to watch that at some point. The summary was what I’d expected, but i feel like i should actually give the Left-Libertarian claim its opportunity to explain itself and fail.

        1. I didn’t make it all the way through yet, but the guy seemed to be trying to pretend like right and left does not exist and that libertarianism is just the NAP and nothing else. It’s sort of bizarre to me that anyone can pretend libertarians have no opinion on the economy. So what I’m saying is that if a such thing as a left libertarians exist, which I don’t believe they do, then what would make them a ‘left’ libertarian unless it would be their preference for socialism over a free market? So, they’re libertarian on social issues, but leftist on economy. That doesn’t make any sense. They would be more like progressives, and we know progs only like civil rights that suit their immediate goals, otherwise they are authoritarian as you can get.

          1. As described that does seem crazy, you can’t embrace the NAP and economic regulation. That’s all backed up with force.

          2. It’s really, really simple, man. They’re left because they have more lefty values. They take seriously the left’s concepts of exclusion, subordination, alienation, blah blah blah, but still come to libertarian conclusions. Economics wise, they think that worker co-ops are viable and may be preferable, that there can be public land*, the corporate form as it exists is propped up by the state, worker unions and organizations are important checks, etc. Generally, they believe that, if all state privileges are revoked, people will (or ought to) choose to act in a way that approximates what a lot of lefties/socialists claim to want. As Gary Chartier puts it, socialist ends by market means.

            *not that non-left libertarians are necessarily against this, but left libertarians stress it

          3. No, what makes them Left is that they tend to acknowledge ways in which racism, sexism, anti-gay bigotry, etc. are real social problems and that these things are often reinforced by the state. All of the Left Libertarians I am aware of are free market anarchists. I don’t buy fully into their predictions for what a libertarian economic order would result in (some industries might end up dominated by small to medium sized worker owned co-ops, but many others would not). I think there are differences with how they approach things as compared to other libertarians, but when it comes to policy, they agree. They write just as disapprovingly of anti-discrimination laws as other libertarians, for instance.

            1. Your characterization of “”All of the Left Libertarians [you are] aware of”” is not exactly an accurate description of the *actual* Left Libertarians we’re talking about


              Maybe you should watch the video before making pronouncements about what they are supposed to believe

              1. I’ve watched that video and I read the article a while back, neither refutes what I said above.

          4. I took Richmans explanation of his concept of left libertarian as non-statest. Basically, his version was basically the tenants of libertarianism plus the sanctimony of progs but not backed up by force. It’s like I’m a libertarian but better than you. Yeah, the economics parts of his arguments seemed the most disjointed. He’s against capitalism because all capitalism as we know it is corporatism. Ok Sheldon, then what?

            1. ” Left-libertarians favor worker solidarity (Unions) vis-?-vis bosses…”

              “… support poor people’s squatting on government or abandoned property”

              (which i’d presume would include any un-occupied, foreclosed property – the definition of being ‘abandoned’ for them a question of use rather than 3rd party ownership)

              “”…and prefer that corporate privileges be repealed before the regulatory restrictions on how those privileges may be exercised

              Here you get to precisely how shallow and superficial their support for “capitalism” really is.

              They effectively say that, until capitalism can be practiced in a way that is 100% free of incidental government favoritism or inadvertent subsidy… in other words, until there is some perfect-utopia of ‘free competition’, then there must needs be government intervention in the economy to rectify all disparity.

              Its a bunch of bullshit i wouldn’t consider the slightest bit libertarian.

              My problem with these idiots is that they are useless in moving from any existing status quo to “something better”, because they’re more interested in niggling about what color the drapes in their anarchist utopia are supposed to be rather than deal with public policy issues in the real world.

              1. I’d say that is spot on.

        2. It was worth watching just to put a face to Sheldon. He truly is the filthy Beardo the Weirdo looking hippie I pictured when reading his poorly thought out anti-Semitic screeds.

          1. You do know Sheldon is Jewish himself, right?

            1. Self-loathing Jews are the worst kind of anti-Semites.

              1. I see, like blacks are expected to have only one view on matters of US politics, Jews are expected to have one on matters like Israel, or they’re self-loathing anti-Semites.

                Richman has written about how he grew up in a Conservative Jewish household, his parents were strongly Zionist but he had an Orthodox grandfather who was opposed to the policies of the Israeli government. There’s a bunch of perfectly good reasons as to why he writes a lot about Israel and is mostly critical of them. Maybe it’s an extended rebellion against his parents, or a tribute to his grandfather he recalls so fondly in his writings. Maybe he’s just wrong or right on the facts of the matter. But when you have to suppose that he holds his views because he really hates who he is and all his loved ones, that strikes me as a reason to re-examine your conclusion.

                1. You win Tulpa. I’m wrong. Now shut the fuck up and go away.

              2. Like all the ones in congress backing the Iran deal…….

  15. For me, the troubling thing about these refugees is that they are all from Muslim countries. Ok, so most of them are probably not a problem at all, but there are a few radicals sneaking in and they will try to radicalize the rest. ISIS is already saying they are going to do just this and with the trouble they’ve already had in the UK and France, this is going to get much worse. Europeans native populations are already shrinking. Parts of Europe is going to wind up under the rule of a caliphate before too much longer or there’s just going to be constant turmoil and violence as these people refuse to integrate and Europe’s vast welfare state goes belly up. I’ve been saying this for a while and always take a lot of shit for it, but I’ll express my concerns just the same.

    1. ” the troubling thing about these refugees is that they are all from Muslim countries”

      I would think the ones that are fleeing Islamic radicals, who’ve had their relatives oppressed and/or killed by those groups, would be the least likely to be sympathetic to them though.

      1. You might think that most people fleeing the shit-holiness of a place that makes it a shithole wouldn’t try to bring the shit-holiness with them – but only if you’ve never met any ex-Californians in neighboring states. You generally learn that the Pilgrims who came to America were fleeing religious persecution, but the truth of the matter is that they were looking for a place where they would be free to be the ones dishing out the religious persecution. I suspect that a certain amount of Muslims fleeing oppression aren’t actually opposed to oppression per se, it’s just that they somehow got misdentified as one of the people who righteously deserve the oppression.

    2. Ok, so most of them are probably not a problem at all, but there are a few radicals sneaking in and they will try to radicalize the rest.

      What seems to be the pattern is that the majority of the 1st generation seem to be ok…if they liked chopping off heads they would have been quite content in the shithole they came from. However, the past 30 years in France, Germany, the UK, etc. have shown us that the 2nd generation are the troublemakers, as they attempt to define themselves through a radical adoption of the ethnic/cultural/political identity their parents left behind.

      1. Weird…I didn’t use any tags at all.

        1. Oh come on, we know you were using the gray bar on the left tag. I think it’s the GBL, right?

          1. I only use bars that know an old fashioned doesn’t have any fruit in it.

      2. France’s optimism-crushing socialism might play some small part in this dynamic.

      3. This is where most conversation about immigration begins to breakdown. Context and experience are hugely important when determining if immigration is going to be successful. George Will was on a Sunday morning show explaining that the US needs to take more Syrian refugees because we are in part culpable for their situation much like we were in Vietnam. And, by the way, Vietnamese immigrants were so successful in the USA, and, therefore Syrians would have the same experience. (his argument). My question: Are there no cultural differences between Syrians and Vietnamese that may lead to the same or differing outcomes? Are expectations in the US about assimilation material changed since the ’70’s? Maybe yes, maybe no, but we should discuss that.

        The Europeans have not been really successful at integrating and assimilating immigrant groups. Why is that? Why are second generation Muslims immigrants more likely to become radicalized?

        It’s impossible to discuss immigration without addressing some of these issues, but so many people have simplistic or romantic thinking on the topic it’s hard to address the concrete. I’m looking at Gillespie here.

        Different places and different times have different experiences with flows of peoples. Sometimes it’s largely a successful experience, other times it results in balkanization, conflict, and eventually war. I don’t know why it’s anti-libertarian to talk about that.

        1. Why bother with nuance when there’s shit to fling and signaling to be signaled.

          Culture absolutely matters, but we’re not supposed to say this.

          1. Lets not import more Muslims.

  16. Your tax dollars at, umm, work, presumably.

    The extravagant costumes in the Black Rock Desert help with another escape: from reality.

    A multiyear study published in 2013 looked at the psychological effect of Burning Man on its participants and found that people there were more comfortable expressing themselves, particularly positive emotions. The costumes, said Kateri McRae, an author of the study and an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Denver, could be a reason.

    “The clothes may be a sort of cue that the rules are different here,” she said.

    The rules may be different, but rules there are. If you want to be a nonconformist, you have to fit in.

    1. Let’s all repeat the non-conformists oath!

      I promise to be different!

      I promise to be different!

      I promise to be unique!

      I promise to be unique!

      I promise not to repeat things other people say!

  17. Daniel Zeller, 31, who works in information technology and flew from Melbourne, Australia, for Burning Man, spent several hundred dollars on a slew of glitter onesies from Sea Dragon Studio, a company that specializes in Burning Man costumes. Last week, he was almost out the door to catch his flight, carrying over 60 pounds of outfits in his luggage, when he remembered he should probably bring some street clothes ? at least for the airport.

    “Tutus are huge for men,” Mr. Zeller said. They are worn like kilts, with nothing underneath. “You want to get noticed. All the conversations stop, and people are like, ‘Wow.’ “

    No doubt.

    1. “You want to get noticed. All the conversations stop, and people are like, ‘Wow.’ “

      So… it’s the red carpet outside an award show? That sounds like fun.

    1. Who the hell is this guy? I keep seeing all these adds from him on Youtube. I’ve never heard of him before.

      1. He’s a Harvard prof who made his name on IP law but who since Citizen’s United has been about campaign finance reform.

      2. Lessig has been around since Internet 1.0 and the Microsoft/Netscape browser wars…. and was one of the first people to really make a name for himself on the subject of “Internet Law”.

        He played a role in the early issues re: DMCA, fair use, DRM, DeCSS, GNU project, Napster case, Encryption law…etc. at least as a noted commentator, but sometimes actually participating in cases.

        He’s appealed to libertarians at times because of his ideas about copyright/fair use … other times, less so, because he’s one of these people who thinks Citizens United was a travesty because *money baaaaaad*

  18. Lessig’s platform is repeal of the First Amendment, right?
    That’ll take longer than a day, I suspect. I’m not sure an Executive Order will be considered binding.
    The “value” of a Harvard JD goes down every fucking day.

    1. If he’ll just throw repeal of the 2nd in there, that should wrap up the the prog vote. Sorry, Bernie, you weren’t bold enough.

    2. It’s interesting that he doesn’t know that the president can’t do that. Yet.

      1. The guy who made the youtube video that killed those Americans may disagree with this.

        1. “Probation violations”.

          Although Egypt did sentence him to death in absentia.

    1. Can we get a better picture of her?

      *checks earpiece*

      I’m being told that there isn’t one. That’s the best picture we have.


        1. Why did that man eat all those estrogen infused gummi bears?

        2. 26 year old junior English major.

          Line forms to the left, guys.

          1. I was unaware of her English major status. Us English majors have to stick together. I am now on team “creepy eyes.”

            1. And she’s 26. Must be on the 10 year plan. Thanks, student loans!

              1. I know a woman who has $700 a month college loans, and she gives out financial advice for a living.

                  1. Business, I believe, which may be even worse.

              2. *shrugs*

                If one entered college at 24, that could imply he or she went the military route first.

                1. I refer you to the picture you posted.

                  1. HM didn’t say she FOUGHT in the military. When they had to move large amounts of supplies, they’d use her as a counterweight.

                    1. Logistics is 90 percent of the battle!

    2. But it helps explain why she posted what she posted.

      No, it doesn’t.

        1. I would provide a shoulder to cry on during these trying times, yes.

          1. You’re slipping. I’m so disappointed.

    3. Why is that article so long? Even those Breitbart morons are going to forget about her in a few days.

    4. “Terrifying Right-Wing Internet-Shaming”

      Does this imply that there is right-wing internet shaming that is merely slightly annoying or unpleasant? I’ve yet to hear of it.

  19. Ownership is merely a quaint fiction

    The Bozeman homeowner who demolished his historic home without an appropriate permit as he began a renovation project in April now faces criminal charges, continuing a case that has raised questions about the city’s ability to enforce its historic preservation regulations.

    Brian Martin, of 402 W. Koch St., is charged with three “crimes” under Bozeman Municipal Code, according to documents filed in Bozeman Municipal Court by a city prosecutor Aug. 12. Martin, the city alleges, “exceeded the scope of his Certificate of Appropriateness” when he demolished the structure, added “an illegal, unapproved accessory dwelling unit” to the property in the form of an above-garage apartment, and lived in the apartment without a certificate of occupancy.

    The scourge of unapproved and unpermitted home remodeling must be stamped out by any means necessary.

    1. “Brian Martin, of 402 W. Koch St‘”

      taking over america!!

  20. For those of you who haven’t gazed into the #cuckservative abyss, I come bearing gifts.

    A writer for National Review jokingly said to the cuckservative idiots that “If there’s a race war, I’m taking the side of the blacks,’ just to troll them. Dozens of them took this seriously and started telling him how he wouldn’t survive a race war because his black allies would murder him.

    “WhiteDoggiePrivilege ?@Bjorn_blonde 3m3 minutes ago
    @redsteeze weak white #cuckservative from new York who has a BMI of 11 wants to fight people encouraged to lift and stay fit. Loll”

    “Dr. Frasier Crane ?@DoctorFrasier 18m18 minutes ago
    @redsteeze @ThaRightStuff because that’s how race wars work. You wont make it through the first night. Soft hands #cuckservative #NRORevolt”

    “Manly Task ?@Manly_Task 26m26 minutes ago
    @redsteeze They’d shoot you immediately”

    “Mark D. Hamdingers ?@Box_of_Deus 11m11 minutes ago
    @redsteeze Because that usually works pretty well. https://youtu.be/m2L1zcRwPSg Blacks don’t like #cuckservative signals any more than us.”


    1. Irish, this is just between the two of us, but us whites have to stick together. I am not saying that we should pool our resources to keep an eye on HM, but…let’s keep an eye on him just in case the war starts sooner than we think.

        1. What side of the race war would mongrels like you join, HM? Are we going with the one drop rule?

          And what about Asians?

            1. Wild card bitches!

              Seriously my white brothers, lift up your hoods and pay attention to this guy.

              1. That was the most accurate summation of my almost 10 year history of commenting at this site.

    2. “For those of you who haven’t gazed into the #cuckservative abyss”

      I’m good.

  21. Wait, I thought it was Melitha Hawwis-Pewwy?

  22. Well, I hope Welch wore his white suit. Last chance of the year.

    1. grey, pink shirt, blue tie. Way too Funday-Sunday for a discussion on Police Oppression.

    2. I have a wedding this evening. Would it be inappropriate to wear white?

      1. That depends. Are you as chaste as the morning dew?

        1. He’s never had sex with a horse. Does that count?

          1. Only if he’s marrying a horse. In which case you refer to “Bridle-attire-protocol”.


        2. I touched myself this morning.

      2. Sunday evening wedding? On a holiday weekend? Skip it. I give it six months anyway.

        1. It’s even worse than you think. Today is my birthday. I warned them 6 months ago. Assholes.

          1. How old? I might just give you six months, too.

            1. Me? 36. But I have the penis of a 25 year old.

              1. If the 25 year old posts on here he probably doesn’t need it anyway

                1. I didn’t know what masturbatory fantasy meant until I started reading Doherty’s posts.


          3. Hey, at least you can get hammered and not worry about having to clean up after your own party. Sounds like a win-win

            1. I’m cautiously optimistic. The bride likes to booze, so there’s bound to be some decent drinks there. But, it’s outdoors, and it’s like 95 in the valley today.

          4. Happy Birthday!

      3. IMHO men should only wear white suits in 3 possible scenarios =

        – when running a Cocaine Empire
        – when welcoming people to Fantasy Island
        – when greeting time travelers from the past to The Future

        Otherwise, you’re just asking to get wine spilled on you.

          1. Ah.

            I think that’s technically a year-round uniform, though. Colonel of some racist army or something.

            1. I did find the timing of bringing the colonial back pretty hilarious.

              1. I love those commercials. “Heh heh heh!”

            2. And involved in a racist plot to bring obesity and heart disease to unsuspecting black folks. Plus poison them with the Colonel’s secret recipe of 11 psychoactive herbs and spices.

          2. And then there is the whole “seamen” issue.

          3. “Hawking fried chicken”

            There’s a sick joke in here somewhere, but I will not bite.


            2. Stephen Hawking opened a fired chicken chain?

        1. I think my dad wore an all white tux when he got married in 1981

          1. Powder blue ruffles?

  23. Why can’t you Canucks control your feminists?

    “In May, Queens rapper Action Bronson was bumped from his main stage slot at Toronto’s NXNE festival after feminists claimed ‘the content of his music glorifies raping and murdering women’. ”


    1. now that gangsta rap sells to tween audiences

      Kids these days. Why couldn’t they be into gay leather sex fantasies like in my day?

      1. Oh man what a flash back. Turbo Lover will be played next time I’m near a juke box.

      2. Nothing is so stupid as that comment re: ‘gangster rap’ – or John’s insistence that ‘rap’ writ-large – is some special-case of horribleness in its shocking/offensive appeal… as though that wasn’t the same fucking complaint made by every pearl-clutching cultural-conservative moron since Jazz music started contributing to the debauchery of white women by making them perform lewd dances in places of ill repute among unseemly characters. When I was a kid in the 80s, Rap was actually preferable to the burgeoning Satanic Heavy Metal scene, and wasn’t even among the Tipper Gore Super-Evil top 20 until 2 Live Crew came out and raised the bar for pussy-popping booty-drops.

        These feminists are always the same Woman’s Christian Temperance Union in new garb

        1. I just took a tour through my early college years thanks to that link.

          “Even white boys got to shout!”

        2. Well of course Will Smith was acceptable. He raps happy.

        3. Rap is horrible. Not because of that nonsense about women (plenty of female singers say horrible things about men, mind you). It’s just aesthetically disgusting. It’s like, if you could take feces and turn it into sound, it would be little Wang’s voice, or whatever his ‘name’ is.

          And if you’re wondering, I am in fact smoking a pipe, holding a glass of port in one hand and a copy of Ulysses in the other while I listen one of Bach’s cantatas. *Real* music. Unlike all you Philistines and Ghibellines.

  24. I liked the point one of the guests made about the lack of correlation between more aggressive policing and reduced crime. Is there any relationship that is not completely drowned out by other factors (economic in particular)? We can assume that the presence of police deters crime, but I seriously question whether we get any return on investment at all on increased militarization and more draconian punishment. Legislators like to pretend there’s an “easy button” for this stuff. Bigger guns and more jail equals less crime! Not where I live. More than anything they seem to have simply invented more things to criminalize. So more policing seems to correlate to more “crime.”

    1. If you quit voting for statist assholes then maybe there would be less laws and regulations to police. You ever think about that?

    2. When police come into communities with the mandate to generate revenue than who are the real gangsters. If poor communities would start looking at the results instead of the promises they would kick the progressives to the curb.

  25. “Legislators like to pretend there’s an “easy button” for this stuff. Bigger guns and more jail equals less crime! Not where I live. More than anything they seem to have simply invented more things to criminalize. So more policing seems to correlate to more “crime.””

    Tony wrote this? Holy fuckin’ cognitive dissonance.

  26. Mostly he just sat there listening to the dribble coming out of her mouth. I did think some of her other guests made some valid points. Matt you need to stop being the token Whitie and get a show of your own. You have a real contribution to make.

  27. It was worth watching just to put a face to Sheldon. He truly is the filthy Beardo the Weirdo looking hippie I pictured when reading his poorly thought out anti-Semitic screeds.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.