Harriet Tubman

Rep. Steve King Tries (and Fails) To Keep Harriet Tubman Off $20 Bill

The Iowa congressman called the move to replace Andrew Jackson "liberal activism" on the part of President Obama.

|

Rep. Steve King
Gage Skidmore / Flickr

An effort by Rep. Steve King (R–Iowa) to keep Harriet Tubman off of the $20 bill was rejected by the House Rules Committee on Tuesday night.

King had filed an amendment to a Treasury Department funding bill that would have prevented the redesign of any currency. If the amendment were enacted, it would halt the scheduled replacement of President Andrew Jackson on the front of the $20 bill.

The Rules Committee denied floor consideration of the proposal, meaning Tubman replacing Jackson is still a go.

"It's not about Harriet Tubman," King explained to Politico, pulling a $20 bill from his pocket. "Why would you want to change that? I am a conservative, I like to keep what we have."

Keep in mind who is currently on the front of the $20 bill: Andrew Jackson, a man who was a wealthy slave owner, a supporter of the Indian Removal Act (which forced thousands of Native Americans to be relocated off their land), and one of the biggest expanders of executive power in U.S. history. He should be removed from a place of honor for these things alone, though the new $20 bill actually just moves him to the back along with the White House.

Jackson moreover was a staunch opponent of central banking and its "paper money," which makes it all the more confusing why today's central bank—the Federal Reserve—would put his image on our currency. No one has been able to give an explanation as to why he was selected originally.

Tubman, on the other hand, is well-deserving of the honor. As Reason's Nick Gillespie noted when the new design was announced, she was not only a leader and participant in the Underground Railroad, but also a suffragette and an ardent believer in the right to self-defense. Plus, polls show most Americans agree with the move to put her on the front of the $20 bill.

But King said it is "racist" and "sexist" to say a woman or person of color should be added to currency. It's not clear what group this would be racist or sexist toward, though King added this dense explanation regarding Tubman's addition, according to Politico:

"Here's what's really happening: This is liberal activism on the part of the president that's trying to identify people by categories, and he's divided us on the lines of groups. … This is a divisive proposal on the part of the president, and mine's unifying. It says just don't change anything."

That King called his move to halt the change "unifying" makes no sense, especially considering it was the Republican-controlled Rules Committee that ultimately blocked him.

NEXT: Johnson/Weld Roundup: The Two Former Governors Make the Rounds and Try to Distinguish Themselves Before Tonight's CNN Town Hall

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’m all for it, just so I can start referring to $20 bills as “Tubbies”.

    1. All that cocaine going through those bills gonna make her a white girl.

      1. I am so glad I wasn’t eating or drinking when I first read that, it would have ended up everywhere. I’m still laughing my ass off at it.

    2. With inflation, ‘Tubbies’ are going to be the new base, rhetorically helping everyone forget the new ‘unit’ is actually twenty old units.

      Like Zimbabwe, but dialed down.

  2. I have a compromise: how about the $20 featuring a picture of Harriet Tubman sitting on AJ’s face?

  3. I want to be on the twenty. Or at least make it a mirror.

  4. Alex, you left out the Steve King money shot:

    “President Obama’s on his way out the door,” he said. “He’s going to do everything he can think of to upset this society and this civilization.”

    OBAMA ONLY HAS SIX MONTHS TO DESTROY CIVILIZATION LIKE HE TOTALLY WANTS TO DO

    1. And he’ll start with the $20 bill. May God have mercy on us all.

  5. I think it’s just swell that we’ve solved all the tough challenges facing this country.

  6. I’m glad he has the time to fight these really important battles. What a dweeb.

  7. My vote would be for Foxy Brown although it should probably be Oprah

  8. “Keep in mind who is currently on the front of the $20 bill: Andrew Jackson, a man who was a wealthy slave owner, a supporter of the Indian Removal Act (which forced thousands of Native Americans to be relocated off their land), and one of the biggest expanders of executive power in U.S. history. He should be removed from a place of honor for these things alone.”

    So, it is liberal activism, then, right?

    Those liberals love, love, love, love, love, love, making symbolic gestures, don’t they!

    Especially if it tweaks the noses of conservatives who want to keep America the way it is.

    By the way, somebody should probably mention that Barack Obama has killed hundreds of innocent children with drone strikes, and he also willfully violated the Fourth Amendment rights of about 300 million Americans with the NSA.

    I suppose the latter wouldn’t keep him off the money of the future, in your book, Alex, since he violated everyone’s Fourth Amendment rights equally without regard to race. However, the hundreds of innocent children Obama has killed were universally Muslims–and shouldn’t that bother somebody?

    Maybe the International Criminal Court will look into Obama’s hateful behavior someday–regardless, I hope they don’t put his murderous mug on the $100 bill when he’s gone.

    1. I know right? That part of the post where Alex argued that Obama’s image should appear on currency is totally hypocritical!

      1. If we’re going to start disqualifying American icons for having had the audacity to be slave holders, why not talk about the ones who killed hundreds of children, too?

        Also, seems to me that calling out liberal activism as “liberal activism” is perfectly reasonable. After all, it is liberal activism.

        And then there’s the larger point of my comment–that there’s a big difference between playing with symbols and actually doing evil things, isn’t there? For instance, am I supposed to think Barack “Baby-Killer” Obama is a nice, tolerant guy because he’s playing all inclusive with our national symbols on the money?

        Well I don’t.

        1. You and Steve King seem to be the only people who are interested in making this about Obama.

          1. Am I supposed to pretend this isn’t a typical bullshit PC symbolic gesture by the Obama Administration.

            You know, no children were ever killed by a picture of Andrew Jackson.

            1. No, but I’m pretty sure there were some kids among the thousands who died on the Trail of Tears.

        2. If we’re going to start disqualifying American icons for having had the audacity to be slave holders, why not talk about the ones who killed hundreds of children, too?

          Two points:

          1. The phrase you’re searching for is “crooked politicians”, not “American icons”.
          2. Andrew Jackson DID kill hundreds of children, plus thousands of men and women. The notion that Obama is somehow worse than Jackson is frankly pretty fuckin’ retarded.

          1. History is a foreign country. Comparing Obama (also a child-killer in an era when that sort of thing’s mostly frowned upon except when media darlings are doing it) to a man whose values were forged by a horrific, impoverished, 18th-century childhood is absurd. Jackson was a Bad Guy with numerous admirable qualities; Obama’s just a garden-variety know-it-all who is predictably wrong about almost everything.

          2. “The notion that Obama is somehow worse than Jackson is frankly pretty fuckin’ retarded.”

            You’re making the wrong comparison.

            The comparison is between a picture of Andrew Jackson and Obama murdering children.

            Obama taking down a picture of Andrew Jackson does not make his child killing any better.

            He wants us to think he’s a morally superior person because he took down Andrew Jackson’s picture.

            Meanwhile, Obama’s most recent drone strikes were earlier this month!

            http://tinyurl.com/of6gq8v

            Look at them yourself.

            The comparison isn’t between Andrew Jackson killing children and Obama killing children.

            The comparison is between Obama taking Andrew Jackson’s picture down, on the one hand, and Obama killing children on the other.

            Do you believe symbolically taking Andrew Jackson’s picture down in any way makes Obama morally superior to . . . his critics? Because that’s what he’s saying. That’s why he’s doing this. To project moral superiority to his critics.

            Fuck that noise. Barack Obama is a baby killer, and I won’t shut about it no matter how many pictures he takes down.

            P.S. How did you come to be so easily manipulated by Barack Obama?

    2. None of the funds appropriated in this Act or otherwise available to the Department of the Treasury or the Bureau of Engraving and Printing may be used to redesign the *any* Federal Reserve *note or coin*

      Fuck You, Cut Sp… hey wait a minute!

      1. save the Rounding Errors!

        1. Oh, that’s right. Gary chose Weld as his VP to symbolize the fact that we’re the party of purity rather than the party of practicality.

      2. Look, sometimes you just have to accept pragmatic compromises. This erases untold injustices and is worth any price.

        1. This erases untold injustices and is worth any price.

          Oh, I see. This small little issue is reeeally important to some people so… okay. Just this once.

          Seriously, I have zero problem with Tubman on the $20, but how much and how often *should* we spend redesigning our money? As money gets fabricated in ever-larger sums by increasingly advanced virtual monetary devices shouldn’t we stop redesigning the shrinking portion that actually gets printed to cash?

          1. Why do you want all the people who work hard to redesign money to be out of jobs and lose their homes and not be able to feed their children? Do you hate children?

            1. Frequently.

          2. I’m just parroting the bleeding heart libertarian Reason boilerplate. Seriously, this issue doesn’t even rate the cost of a blogpost let alone actual taxpayer dollars.

            Now a dollar coin is another matter. Why can’t we ever get that right?

            1. “Now a dollar coin is another matter. Why can’t we ever get that right?”

              They wear holes in your pocket.

    3. Maybe the International Criminal Court will look into Obama’s hateful behavior someday–regardless, I hope they don’t put his murderous mug on the $100 bill when he’s gone.

      Twenty five years from now, after the war, a feeble Obama will be in the dock with all the rest at the Shanghai Trials.

      1. I doubt it.

        They’ll try to put him on the money–or whatever passes for that in the future.

        1. The Republicans should be happy that putting Tubman on money forestalls putting Obama and Clinton on it later, since there will already be a black person and a woman represented.

          1. Your tokenism is appalling.

            What, are you campaigning for Trump now?

    4. Are you on drugs? Where did Obama come from all of a sudden.

      Jackson was a piece of shit. I’d much prefer not having real people on money at all. But I’m happy enough not to have that asshole on there.

      1. Look, all Ken is saying is that if you’re going to remove Jackson from the currency, Obama should be removed from all the bills and coins that he’s on as well.

      2. Whether Jackson was a piece of shit, whether this is liberal activism by the Obama Administration, and whether Jackson should be taken off the money might be three different questions with three different answers.

        I’m not going to stand by and watch progressives paper over Obama’s own horrendous–very real–crimes just by doing something empty and symbolic. Obama has the blood of hundreds of innocent children on his hands.

        Do you know how many shitty things the Obama Administration gets away with doing because it does purely symbolic shit that makes people think feel like he’s got a warm, sensitive heart?

        So, the Obama Administration thinks the symbol of Andrew Jackson is bad, well you know who else has done some incredibly horrifying things? I’ll give you a hint: he’s a President and he’s blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!

        1. Okay, I can totally get behind the idea of not having Jackson or Obama on the money. Totally sounds like a good idea.

          But I think I also found a compromise that everyone will like.

          Let’s put Samuel L. Jackson on the $20. Preferably as he appeared in Pulp Fiction because he’s awesome in that movie.

          That way the Republicans can be happy, the $20 still shows “Jackson”.

          The Democrats can be happy, money is now more diverse or whatever.

          And Libertarians can be happy, the money doesn’t show a statist politician.

          EVERYONE WINS. Also the reverse side of the $20 can read “Bad Mother Fucker”.

          1. I’m down with Samuel L.

            How about Thomas Edison or William Shockley?

            Or maybe instead of doing something empty and symbolic, why don’t we legalize cannabis instead–freeing millions from the constant threat of prison?

            No?

            Okay, well how about we put Henry Ford on the 20?

            1. Or maybe instead of doing something empty and symbolic, why don’t we legalize cannabis instead–freeing millions from the constant threat of prison?

              No?

              Man, we can’t even convince SIV to save on the rounding errors and he’s a libertarian!

              /sarc

            2. Look personally I think we should just stop printing enough money for this to even be a thing anyone needs to care about. Or at the very least we should do like other countries do and change the colors so that everything isn’t dull green and the same. Colorful money I’d prioritize over caring about who’s on the money. And when we get to what is on the money, I think we need more weird occult shit like the pyramid/eye thing on our money. That shit is cool. After all that, maybe instead of keeping the same people on the money all the time we should set up a rotation, change it up every year or so, make money like a collectible trading card game.

              But anyway, my thoughts on our boring dull-green money aside, this pointless symbolism is not pointless. It’s a trap. A well tested, tried and true trap. Make a relatively minor thing that happens to look like pointless PC symbolism, and the Red Tribe will jump at the chance to make a big deal out of it, thus making it look like the Red Tribe overreacts to minor, pointless non-issues.

              It works every time, so I really can’t fault Blue Tribe from doing it. Seems FAR from pointless to ME. The more you can make your opposition bitch about who gets to be on the twenty the less time they have to point out the fact that you’re trying to get a corrupt, criminal politician elected president.

              1. Colorful money I’d prioritize over caring about who’s on the money.

                Looks like somebody isn’t sending his orphans to the ATM for rolling papers often enough and/or missed a meme.

          2. Maybe the Republicans in Congress should pass a bill putting Tubman on the $20 and John Browning on the $50.

            1. John Browning is a good one.

              Maybe Crazy Horse, too.

        2. “Do you know how many shitty things the Obama Administration gets away with doing because it does purely symbolic shit that makes people think feel like he’s got a warm, sensitive heart?”
          Yep. 0.

          The people that will be upset over them are upset anyway, the people that will overlook them will overlook them anyway. Pretending anyone actually changes their opinion of Obama because he said “sure, why not” when someone suggested putting Tubman on the $20 bill is pretty silly.

        3. Thinking Jackson was bad and Harriet Tubman was an American hero isn’t a “liberal” belief. It is a “not an asshole” belief.

    5. According to this website, between 216 and 419 children have been killed by drone strikes in just Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Afghanistan.

      http://tinyurl.com/of6gq8v

      You can look at the data sets yourself by country, but most of them are from after 2007–meaning attributable to Obama.

      Yes, Obama has killed more children than Adam Lanza did at Sandy Hook. In the international community’s defense, Obama did that after they gave him the Nobel Peace Prize–not before. How could they have known?

      Please, America of the future, Obama has the blood of too many children on his hands. Don’t put him on the money!

      1. FFS Ken, take your meds.

        1. Here, have a listen to this first:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50_iRIcxsz0

          Deal with it.

      2. Okay we won’t. /enddiscussion

  9. Yeah, them damn libs, trying to put a gun toting Republican on the twenty.

    1. A gun toting, religious Republican at that.

  10. Since we’re quoting Iowahawk today:

    “Breaking: Treasury throws founder of the Democratic Party off $20 bill, replaces with gun-toting Republican”

    http://twitter.com/iowahawkblo…..5982409733

    1. Iowahawk, a national treasure.

      1. Fuck yeah! This is what the Stupid Party should be saying if they weren’t stupid.

  11. I think it’s a shame to not keep Jackson on money. Putting him on the 20 spot was the biggest fuck you to the dead president imaginable. He isn’t being honored by being on money. He’s being humiliated. Aren’t they supposed to teach American history in schools? Everyone should know this.

    1. You can’t humiliate someone who doesn’t exist anymore.

      1. But you sure as hell can signal… something.

      2. I’m not so sure about that.

  12. I have a solution, re-print all of the money with No faces on it.

    I can understand why so many White Americans are angry about this. Andrew Jackson is the poster-child of the Indian Genocide and of Slavery.

    It’s heritage, not hate.

  13. So we have a Republican who wants to keep the founder of the Democrats on the currency rather than a Republican?

    Politics is weird.

    1. We have a Republican that wants to prevent The Fed from spending money to redesign bills and a bunch of libertarians shaming him for it because he *should* be on Team Tubman, not Team Jackson.

      Agreed.

      1. We have a Republican who doesn’t like the idea of a black woman staring him the face every time he goes to the ATM.

        1. So, Team Jackson then?

        2. Yeah, they ran through the briars
          And they ran through the brambles
          And they ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn’t go
          They ran so fast that the hounds couldn’t catch ’em
          On down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico

          USA! USA! USA!

          Deal. With. It.

          1. You realize that battle took place after the peace treaty was signed, right?

            1. USA! USA! USA!

            2. They drew first blood!

      2. We have a Republican that wants to prevent The Fed from spending money to redesign bills

        “It’s not about Harriet Tubman, it’s about keeping the picture on the $20,” King said Tuesday evening, pulling a $20 bill from his pocket and pointing at President Andrew Jackson. “Y’know? Why would you want to change that? I am a conservative, I like to keep what we have.”

        Clearly.

        1. Is there a concern about SCOTUS re-interpreting what was written in favor of what he said?

          If not, you’re just as guilty of playing the Team bullshit as he is and whomever before him.

      3. I think the Fed was redesigning the $20 yet again to make it more counterfeit proof anyway.

        Spending money for a redesign is not what he is objecting to.

        1. Spending money for a redesign is not what he is objecting to.

          In the bill, it was. No mention of Tubman or $20. I don’t disagree with Tubs on the $20. I just see lots of libertarians overlooking the libertarianness of his actions in order to play Team politics. I wonder how things will fair when it comes time to actually stop printing money (if ever).

          Do we really need to be redesigning for anti-counterfeiting? Haven’t we gone through like 2 or 3 economic downturns with major financial institutions and international banks cooking the books? Didn’t we spend a decade printing money in home loans?

          1. King’s objection was to putting Tubman on the money. Denying the spending was just the means to the end. It is silly to argue otherwise when King himself disagrees with you.

          1. And if Reason were interested in something other than social signaling a piece on this would have been far more useful.

      4. It’s a stupid hill to choose to die on.

        1. On both sides.

    2. The only reason today’s republicans are republican is because of the 1960’s and the Civil Rights Act signed by Johnson.

      Quite frankly, I’m surprised Linden Johnson wasn’t also assassinated.

      Instead, a white racist tried to assassinate George Wallace for not being racist enough.

      Yes, politics is weird.

  14. I’d like to eliminate Jackson from the $20 and put Tubman on something but maybe it shouldn’t be the $20.

    Why not promote Hamilton to the $20 – more appropriate since the $20 is most commonly dispensed by ATMs and Hamilton was the first treasury secretary, and put Tubman on the $10 as originally planned?

    1. Let’s just put Nicholas Cage making weird faces on all the money.

      1. That would be the currency America deserves. I wholeheartedly endorse.

    2. I suspect that unless you used a totally different picture of Hamilton on it people would complain that it was too confusing and tell anecdotes about people accidentally handing over 20s thinking they were 10s.

  15. “Here’s what’s really happening: This is liberal activism on the part of the president that’s trying to identify people by categories, and he’s divided us on the lines of groups. … This is a divisive proposal on the part of the president, and mine’s unifying. It says just don’t change anything.”

    Steve King is a dumb fuck who doesn’t understand that this is exactly the reason why Obama/the Dems do the shit that they do. It’s called provocation or “reverse psychology.”

    It’s stupid shit like this that makes the Republican Party anathema to black voters. I was talking with a younger black voter around my age about this issue (he leans libertarian and is pro-gun), and he was head-scratchingly puzzled by this. His reaction was essentially: “A gun-toting and devoutly religious badass Republican black woman, and the GOP has to make an issue of it? Really? Do they hate Obama that much?”

    In a situation like this, you troll the Dems by “thanking” Obama for helping to celebrate a gun-toting Republican who used firearms to protect and free black slaves.

    The GOP really is The Stupid Party.

    1. They nominated a raging mysogynist buffoon to run against the most corrupt politician in living memory who happens to be a woman. The Stupid Party can’t get any stupider.

      1. Pretty much.

        A raging misogynistic buffoon who’s also likely to send otherwise unenthusiastic minority voters to the polls (with Obama not on the ballot) just to vote against the GOP ticket.

        1. As an outsider, I’m rather enjoying it though. After decades of tiptoeing Republicans who were afraid to play the game, we finally have someone who is in the fray. He’s an idiot, but he’s in there swinging.

          His “he’s more angry with me than he is with the terrorists” line was actually brilliant. Best rejoinder I can remember. And today he rips into the Clinton corruption. The fact that this has gone unmentioned for so long is a black mark on the media and US politicians.

          But his bit about “I’m with Hillary” vs “I’m with the American People” was pretty clever. And the attacks on the huge speaking fees (payoffs) is long, long overdue. Newt Gingrich made his name as a back-bencher attacking small-time corruption and got laid low for taking an advance on a book deal. All of the stuff was less than 1% of what we are talking with the Clintons.

          The Dems are top-shelf worried about donations to political campaigns and PACS corrupting the system, but hundreds of millions in direct payments doesn’t bother them a bit.

          Even if there is nothing at all to it, this is something that should have been exploited from day 1. It is incompetent to do otherwise.

          And I like the fact that Trump does his own dirty work, unlike every politician in the last 30+ years. For that he should be praised as well.

          And that is the end of “nice things Cyto has to say about Trump”.

          1. Trump has definitely been useful in shredding the Clintons (he basically forced Bubba off the campaign trail a couple of months back by bringing up Lewinsky, Paula Jones, et al.), but it won’t amount to a hill o’ beans once the Clintons are back in the White House.

            I just think the GOP once again squandered a huge (yuge!) opportunity by giving in to the angry old talk radio voter base instead of focusing long-term by bringing in younger voters. (Rand Paul could have easily done the outreach against Clinton.)

          2. “As an outsider, . . . blah, blah, blah”

            USA! USA! USA!

            1. I”m not following….. is that supposed to be me rooting for Trump? I haz confuse.

              1. USA! USA!

      2. Remember this is outfit that in 2012 picked the one guy in their ranks deeply tied up with Obamacare – and he was actually best choice in that field. Now they’re 2/2.

    2. They nominated a raging mysogynist buffoon to run against the most corrupt politician in living memory who happens to be a woman. The Stupid Party can’t get any stupider.

    3. Yeah. Really the Blue Tribe seem to be doing relatively minor shit that seems like PC/diversity nonsense specifically to lure the Red Tribe into making a big deal over a minor issue.

      I can’t fault the Blue Tribe for this one, though. The Red Tribe falls into the trap EVERY damn time, and it’d be foolish to abandon a winning strategy.

      1. It’s like Charlie Brown and the football. Over and over and over, ad nauseum.

      2. The Red Tribe falls into the trap EVERY damn time, and it’d be foolish to abandon a winning strategy.

        Not only falls into the trap EVERY time, but fails to even understand that they can play the cards when they’re dealt into their own fucking hand.

  16. “Tubman, on the other hand, is well-deserving of the honor. As Reason’s Nick Gillespie noted when the new design was announced, she was not only a leader and participant in the Underground Railroad, but also a suffragette and an ardent believer in the right to self-defense. Plus, polls show most Americans agree with the move to put her on the front of the $20 bill.”

    Why does leading the Underground Railroad make her well-deserving to be on currency?

    1. Why does leading the Underground Railroad make her well-deserving to be on currency?

      This is the sort of question that Trump supporters typically ask.

      1. Lots of people built railroads, Hazel. Do they ALL deserve to be on currency?

      2. This is the sort of question that Trump supporters typically ask.

        BUUUUUURRRRRRN

      3. “This is the sort of question that Trump supporters typically ask.”

        Are you Okay?

        1. I think HazelMeade may have gone full bore TDS. Your question had absolutely nothing to do with Trump.

    2. What, you don’t support the rights of Synths?? Fucking Brotherhood of Steel fascist.

      1. “What, you don’t support the rights of Synths?? Fucking Brotherhood of Steel fascist.”

        You want to put a synth on the bottlecaps?

        (I’m really more upset that I got the reference)

      2. “What, you don’t support the rights of Synths?? Fucking Brotherhood of Steel fascist.”

        +4

      3. I wish they’d come out with a fallout 4. And make a sequel to the matrix.

  17. Why did they pick the ugliest possible black woman they find?

    Just put Beyonce on there.

    1. This would work for me

      http://www.belly-button-rings-…..ercing.jpg

  18. What’s wrong with giving a hairy tubgirl a $20?

    1. You give her a 40, not a $20, everyone knows that.

  19. It’s not clear what group this would be racist or sexist toward, though King added this dense explanation regarding Tubman’s addition, according to Politico:

    I think he is using this as shorthand for saying:

    “The White House wanted to change a prominent bill to have a woman of color on it. They went out looking for one and came up with Harriet Tubman.”

    This as opposed to “Harriet Tubman is well and truly worthy of honor. We are going to change the currency, so let’s put her image there in her honor.”

    I think you’d have a hard time arguing with a straight face that they just went” “Hey, we need to redesign the $20. Who is the best person we could possibly get to put on the $20?”

    There are tons and tons of people who are imminently deserving of a place of honor who are not politicians. Harriet Tubman is among them. But does she rate above the great industrialists? Or how about the great scientists? I don’t think I’d put a single politician since the founding above Einstein, or Bell, Tesla, Edison, Bell, Pauling, etc…..

    1. I’m a scientist, so I’d put every one of the top scientists above any politician or social activist. But that’s just me. I mean, sure, agitating to get laws changed can help a lot of people. But does it remotely compare with the polio vaccine for impact on humanity? As recently as 1980 there were a quarter million people living in the US who were paralyzed by polio. There are still millions worldwide. Soon that number will be zero, thanks to the vaccine.

      So who is more worthy of praise? Sure, we always go for the person fighting – either injustice or in a war.. whatever. But guys like Brodie and Enders working quietly in a lab can have far more impact on the wellbeing of humanity. What about the guys who made BT corn and golden rice? How many millions will they have saved? And they are more likely to get their house firebombed than they are to be lionize on a currency.

      1. Sounds like we should do various groups for each denomination–Founding Fathers/Signers of the DoI, Abolitionists, Captains of Industry, Inventors, Civil Rights Champions. Plenty of ideas to choose from.

        Have a group of portraits (4-5) on the front, some other design on the back…..

        Of course, who makes the cut and who doesn’t opens up a whole new can of worms. But, still.

    2. Really what the fuck is wrong with throwing the black people a bone?
      I would support Fredrick Douglas being on money. We should make SOME sort of effort to make black people feel included. Putting a black person on money is a harmless symbolic act unlike nominating SCOTUS judges based on race.

      1. Fine. We’ll take Lincoln off the fiver and put Clarence Thomas on instead.

        And if that doesn’t pacify the race-baiters, we can just tell them to go to hell.

        1. *slow clap*

      2. Nothing, really. In fact, if they just stated it up front, they’d fare a lot better.

        That’s pretty much what they did with Sacagawea. Even though she wasn’t exactly the perfect choice for honoring native Americans, they made it clear that she was kind of a stand-in proxy for a long overdue honoring of the native peoples.

      3. Really what the fuck is wrong with throwing the black people a bone?

        That is sooooo racist!

      4. Really what the fuck is wrong with throwing the black people a bone?

        You mean like teaching black history one month of the school year, as though it resided in a ghetto?

      5. “Putting a black person on money is a harmless symbolic act unlike nominating SCOTUS judges based on race.

        That isn’t the way the progressives are treating it.

        They treat harmless symbolic acts as if they’re evidence of moral superiority to all of Obama’s critics.

        At some point, that stops being harmless.

      6. HazelMeade|6.22.16 @ 5:45PM|#
        “Really what the fuck is wrong with throwing the black people a bone?”

        The presumption that ‘black people’ give a hoot about what’s printed on money other than the number.
        I really don’t give a hoot, so long as it isn’t debased to the point that 10 of ’em now equals 1 of ’em then, and I’ll bet a lot of ‘black people’ are on my side.

    3. Borlaug or GTFO.

    4. My grandmother on my mother’s side was a friend of Pauling. He was kinda nuts. Going on about Vitamin C all the time.

      When I was a kid, I used to have to take that constantly. My piss was always bright yellow, almost glowing.

      1. Dude had two Nobel prizes. Actually earned them too. So he earned the right to espouse a couple of nutty theories.

        I met him when I was in grad school. We all went down to the Burly Earl for beers on Friday afternoon and he started sketching out some idea on a napkin. All the faculty was going with it and running with his idea. I chimed in that it was wrong….

        and the two-time Nobel prize winning professor emeritus actually entertained my thoughts instead of pulling an argument from authority. He argued with me for about a minute, then he abruptly switched sides and said I was right. He then argued on my side against the faculty big-shots.

        It was everything I love about the scientific process all in one conversation over a few beers. The biggest of the big shots in the world of science were arguing, and some piss-ant grad student can carry the day if he’s right.

        1. I’ve never been smarter than when I was a grad student.

          1. I like that. It was a particular moment in time, wasn’t it?

      2. Yellow piss is evidence of excess Vitamin B2 not C, either that or dehydration. Orange pee sometimes occurs with excess C. I have taken extra B (I find it helps with hangovers) but never excess C to the point of discolored urine. I. too. was raised on with Pauling’s faith in high dose C but my parents never quite took it to the point he advocated, I suspect.

        Excess vitamin C is implicated in diarrhea, abdominal cramps, nausea or gastrointestinal disturbances.

        As the Royal Navy discovered, adequate levels of Vitamin C are required to prevent scurvy, a horrible debilitating disease. Or, at least, they found that sailors needed fresh fruit and veg, so they stocked limes on board (presumably because of all citrus, their shelf life is longest).

  20. Keep in mind who is currently on the front of the $20 bill: Andrew Jackson, a man who was a wealthy slave owner, a supporter of the Indian Removal Act (which forced thousands of Native Americans to be relocated off their land), and one of the biggest expanders of executive power in U.S. history. He should be removed from a place of honor for these things alone, though the new $20 bill actually just moves him to the back along with the White House.

    Even Reason’s interns are going full retard. This must be the way one wins prestige in their new-ish LA digs.

    Jackson was a Bad Guy. People who run for office, let alone win, almost always are. He was also the guy who defeated the British against all odds and saved the fledgling republic.

    It may be my white male privilege talking, but saving the entire country from foreign invasion and the heavy hand of a jilted empire strikes me as sort of important, perhaps even to the point that the state that owes its very existence to his efforts might honor him in spite of the fact that he was the worst thing any person has ever been, namely rrrraaaaaacist.

    1. “It may be my white male privilege talking, but saving the entire country from foreign invasion and the heavy hand of a jilted empire strikes me as sort of important, perhaps even to the point that the state that owes its very existence to his efforts might honor him in spite of the fact that he was the worst thing any person has ever been, namely rrrraaaaaacist.”

      On the other hand (ableist expression, sorry) Jackson is the reason we have Florida.

      1. See, I like north Florida/south Georgia more than just about any place on earth, so that’s just more reason to appreciate the man.

        Plus, I attended school at a place named after him in a town named after him and have heard all the stories about his lifelong and very justified grudge against the limeys, so I feel like I understand the guy. The world he was raised in was absolute shit compared to the life that Jefferson, Washington, and the framing elites had, and he went out and kicked the hell out of the most powerful imperial force the world had ever seen, was robbed of a presidency, then won the presidency anyway.

        Jackson strikes me as the sort of guy who would chew Stalin up and spit him out without breaking a sweat, and that’s not always a bad thing to have in a leader when you’re faced with a world filled with murderous lunatics and cultists of various stripes.

        1. “See, I like north Florida/south Georgia more than just about any place on earth, so that’s just more reason to appreciate the man.”

          Agreed. It’s just the rest of Florida I don’t care for, what a shame.

          It is kind of sad how Jackson is treated today, not as a complex historical figure but just as an evil character to be defeated. Tubman is receiving similar treatment on the other end, which is more understandable as she’s relatively unknown compared to him.

          I’m not defending Jackson on the bill forever, of course, I just don’t understand why she’s to be the replacement (I mean, it looks a lot like signaling to me but the arguments given are fairly shallow in my opinion).

    2. Andrew Jackson, a man who was a wealthy slave owner,

      Exactly the sort of proggy “the Founding Fathers are all shit” garbage that drives me nuts, especially coming from Reason.

      So was Washington and Jefferson. Should be take them off the currency, and tear down their memorials in DC, Taliban-style? Fuck that “Founding Father X owned slaves!” horseshit.

      1. Only Hamilton will remain, I hear he was a half-black immigrant.

      2. So was Washington and Jefferson. Should be take them off the currency, and tear down their memorials in DC, Taliban-style? Fuck that “Founding Father X owned slaves!” horseshit.

        Irony and reductios in particular are wasted on the present generation of leftards and the shining intellectuals who lead them. These are the same people who, when faced with the legacy of a president who sent 100k doughboys to their deaths and many more to the madhouse, sit around and condemn him for failing to like black people.

        As Walter Williams has pointed out many times, white people who pretend to like black people is a very recent development in America’s history. If one were cynical, one might wonder whether the race-baiters *really* like African-Americans so much that they’re willing to destroy the sacred legacy of WW or whether maybe they’re trying to score prestige points by putting themselves in a position of moral superiority to the progressive’s progressive.

      3. The difference is that Washington and Jefferson were both Founding Fathers, intelligent men, wise beyond their years/ahead of their time, and were essential to the establishing of America’s greatness.

        Jackson was actually a genocidal maniac who more or less contributed greatly to the Manifest Destiny bullshit which made the Civil War inevitable. He was an agrarian populist “common man” just like Trump who riled up the masses on ethnic nationalist sentiment.

        1. “The difference is that Washington and Jefferson were both Founding Fathers, intelligent men, wise beyond their years/ahead of their time, and were essential to the establishing of America’s greatness.”

          Do you think most of the people calling for Jackson’s removal are going to care about that? From what I hear, America was never great.

          1. Do you think most of the people calling for Jackson’s removal are going to care about that?

            Of course not. Fuck ’em.

            But this isn’t really about Jackson. It is — IMO — about proggies getting conservatives riled up so that they reflexively defend controversial figures like Jackson, because today’s conservatives (and today’s proggies*) mostly define themselves negatively based on who/what they hate. The proggies attack Jackson so the Right goes to defend him.

            *Difference being that today’s proggies seem aware of this and have been doing it smarter than The Stupid Party.

      4. Andy Jackson wasn’t a Founder; he was nine years old in 1776.

        1. (I mean, I agree that “The Founders weren’t perfect by 2016 standards, they suck!” is tiresome and doesn’t work.

          Just that Jackson wasn’t one of them.

          And I like everything about him and his policies and positions a lot less than Washington and Jefferson.)

      5. So Andrew Jackson was the FDR of the 19th century.

      6. Why is it okay when RC Dean says it?

    3. Jackson hardly “sav[ed] the entire country from foreign invasion”. The Battle of New Orleans was

      1. Jackson hardly “sav[ed] the entire country from foreign invasion”. The Battle of New Orleans was a huge victory and Britain was without question the aggressor but the war was all but over.

        The main thing about it was that it boosted the countries morale after a war with many humiliating defeats and precious few victories.

  21. Rep. King should go on a hunger strike until Bobby Sands is on the dime.

    1. Giving new meaning to the term “one thin dime.”

    2. I think you are confusing your Representative Kings – that would be Peter not Steven.

      1. Oops – I’ll never confuse my Kings again.

        I loved Rep. King’s Letter From a Birmingham Jail.

        And Salem’s Lot.

  22. What are the shortest cookbooks in the world?

    The Bobby Sands Cookbook and Uncle Abdullah’s Halal Barbecue Recipes.

  23. The Man Who Invented the Modern Democratic Party is being replaced with a God-Fearing, Gun-Toting, Republican.

    I’m all for it.

  24. Half of Rep. King’s reasoning is bullshit, but I’d support his bill.

    What is not well reported is that the Tubman bill is just one part of a top-to-bottom, ideologically-driven, radical redesign of the currency by the Obama Administration. Our currency, which has been remarkably staid and conservative for nearly a century, except for security-demanded features like the big faces and colors, is to change into a more open-ended design philosophy, and one that is expected to undergo rapid, periodical changes. The Obama Administration has made the Orwellian move of declaring that the previous, actually rather minimal Bush Adminstration redesigns had the “theme” of “liberty” because they contained symbols of liberty (actually, of course, liberty is the “theme” of the United States of America and our money reflected that like everything else does). The new theme will be “equality,” which they claim is more appropriate and inclusive for our modern country…

    1. …As a person of color myself, I think a diversity of American heroes need to be commemorated in general; and a “bias” toward neglected groups is appropriate to achieve some overall balance. But there is no reason than every particular commemoration needs to be muscled in by minorities to achieve “balance” in that very one. I do not need a colored face on Mount Rushmore, and I do not per se need one on the currency. If we are to start from square one, Tubman is my personal hero and gets my vote for any commemoration you got. But I see no particular reason that we should redesign.

      Not that any of this is terribly important anyway.

    2. change into a more open-ended design philosophy, and one that is expected to undergo rapid, periodical changes.

      That’s an understatement. Outside of folding up a couple of twenty dollar bills given to me by older relatives on my birthday, I haven’t touched paper currency in nearly a year. Paper currency is dying, and it’s dying quickly.

      I don’t know whether that makes the BHO administration’s decision less irritating, but it’s at least some consolation that I don’t have to be reminded of the left’s totalitarian impulse and desire to intrude on all facets of my existence every time I buy so much as a slice of pizza.

      1. It’s not really dying as fast as folks with a relatively unrepresentative perspective, even within the U.S., might think. (Internationally, it varies greatly from country to country, even for otherwise similar ones.) But it’s no surprise that governments are leading the effort to push cash out the door…

        It’s certainly on its way out eventually. But whether our bold new world is one of more privacy or less hinges on whether alternative payment methods like Bitcoin are part of the picture. And unfortunately, government will have a lot to say about that–for those who intend to operate within the law, at least.

      2. I assure you, you’re an outlier, there.

        (And I’m no curmudgeon, or “they want to rule us with electric money!” nut; I regularly use my phone to pay for groceries.

        But I also regularly use cash to buy things, as does nearly everyone I know.)

        1. When I say that it’s disappearing, I don’t mean that when 2020 rolls around treasury notes will be banned, just that paperless transactions are the primary form of payment today for almost everything you might want to do, whether you’re paying for rent or groceries or a bouquet. That’s only going to increase in the years to come, as the system of accounting is essentially a souped-up version of the old ledger system that bankers used centuries ago to keep from having to haul around specie every time they conducted a transaction. Unless I’m for some reason buying something that I don’t want traced back to me via electronic record, I don’t see a reason to use treasury notes. And yes, I’m sure the federal government could data mine my dietary or gasoline-buying habits, but I don’t have sufficient energy to care whether they know/suspect how much brown rice or frozen pizza I eat.

          The monetary system, of course, is completely broken and will eventually lead to ruin, but the good news there is that 1) we have sufficient technology that “ruin” will not be nearly as bad as it used to be and 2) there’s always been a great deal of ruin in a nation because we’ve almost always been ruled by crooks and sociopaths.

          1. The blockchain is a nice idea, but I have my doubts about its viability given the usual government solution to high-tech innovations that circumvent its power, namely killing/imprisoning those who offend it.

            Our best hope at this point is probably technological, either the introduction of low-cost, high-IQ designer babies who would be much more accepting of the cold reasoning of libertarianish arguments or godlike AI or some combination of the two. It’s easy for us to forget that the socialist cult is a temporary problem that will disappear in a few hundred years in just the same way that every other pious movement has.

  25. It’s not really dying as fast as folks with a relatively unrepresentative perspective, even within the U.S. might think. (Internationally, it varies greatly from country to country, even for otherwise similar ones.) But it’s no surprise that governments are leading the effort to push cash out the door…

    It’s certainly on its way out eventually. But whether our bold new world is one of more privacy or less hinges on whether alternative payment methods like Bitcoin are part of the picture. And unfortunately, government will have a lot to say about that–for those who intend to operate within the law, at least.

  26. But King said it is “racist” and “sexist” to say a woman or person of color should be added to currency

    It’s racist or sexist to say a woman or person of color should be added to currency to tick that checkbox, rather than because they’d be the preferred, ideal pick even if male and/or white.

    Does that help?

    (If we use race or sex to decide who to pick and not pick, we call that “racism” and “sexism”, because we are discriminating against some and for others because of race and sex.

    See how easy this is, Mr. Thomas?

    I mean, I like the idea of Tubman on the $20, because I think she’s a better person to put on it than Jackson, yes!

    Just not “Because she checks off our black and female boxes! A twofer!!”)

  27. Seriously, guys, I think Hazel might have Trump Derangement Syndrome.

    I like Hazel. I often disagree with Hazel, but I like Hazel.

    Hazel goes over the edge when you bring up Trump.

    If you convinced Hazel that Trump was everything outside the volcano, Hazel would jump in the volcano.

    1. To be fair, Trump is kinda easy to loathe outside of the “enemy of my enemy” thing where he attacks contemptible people like the Clintons, the media, the Republicans, etc.

      1. Yeah, but not everyone’s eager to jump in the volcano.

        I mean, I don’t like the guy either, but I’m not throwing my elbows around to be the first one into the volcano.

  28. I am a conservative, I like to keep what we have.

    Said Rep. Steve King’s doppelganger during the debate on the 13th Amendment.

  29. Harriet Tubman sounds like a good choice, or Lou Reed. Velvet Underground Railroad.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.