Film Subsidies

How Pennsylvania Taxpayers are Forced to Pay for Hollywood Hits Like Split (And Misses Like The Last Airbender)

M. Night Shyamalan has made millions off his sometimes-good, sometimes-bad movies, and millions more from taxpayers in Pennsylvania.

|

Dennis Van Tine/LFI/Avalon/Newscom

Director M. Night Shyamalan's latest film, Split, about the horrific machinations of a man with more than 20 personalities living inside his brain, debuted last month to critical acclaim and box office success. That was surely a welcome surprise for Shyamalan, after the director known for crafting twist endings had had become something of a punch line over the past decade as he suffered through a string of commercial and critical failures.

It's a horror story Pennsylvania taxpayers, too, who continue to subsidize the filmmaker's career.

A state-run program that subsidizes film and television productions gave Shyamalan, a Pennsylvania native who often sets and films his movies in the state, more than $12 million in tax credits for The Happening, his 2008 film about trees that try to exterminate humans (it's actually worse than it sounds). Shyamalan scored another $36 million from Pennsylvania for his 2010 adaptation of The Last Airbender, a movie probably best remembered for the controversy surrounding Shyamalan's decision to cast white actors as Japanese characters. It drew devastating reviews—Roger Ebert called the film "an agonizing experience in every category I can think of and other still waiting to be invented"—and topped many "worst film of the year" lists.

For Split, though, Pennsylvania granted a mere $2.6 million in tax credits.

There's no relationship between the quality of a movie and whether or not it gets subsidies, of course. Split got a smaller subsidy because it had a smaller budget than Shyamalan's two previous special-effects-laden films. In all three cases, though, lawmakers should be asking why the subsidies were needed at all. Even Airbender, for all the terrible reviews, made more than $310 million at the box office. Split has made more than $100 million so far, more than 10 times its budget of just $9 million.

Shayamalan doesn't need welfare. The director lives at Ravenwood, a 1937 Georgian Revival mansion on a 125-acre estate (which he bought for $17.9 million in 2012, moving up from an $8 million mansion in the Main Line) just west of Philadlephia.

Supporters of film subsidy programs argue that luring major movie productions away from Hollywood can boost local economies and create jobs. These programs have flourished over the past decade, but research increasingly shows that these subsidies are costly and ineffective at creating jobs, with many of the benefits often redirected out-of-state.

Pennsylvania hands out $60 million in tax credits each year to lure movie and television productions to the Keystone State. Some state lawmakers want to giveaway more. The tax credit functions as a 25 percent rebate on practically any expense connected to filming in Pennsylvania, from catering lunch for production crews to buying camera equipment, but to qualify a project must spend at least 60 percent of its budget in-state.

Since creating the tax credit program under Gov. Ed Rendell in 2004, Pennsylvania has subsidized films that turned into major hits (Silver Linings Playbook got $4.4 million) and laughable flops (After Earth, Will Smith's disaster that was supposed to launch his son's career, got more than $20.4 million). The list includes critically-acclaimed films (Foxcatcher, an under-the-radar 2015 Oscar nominee, got $5.4 million; Fences, nominated for four Oscars this year, got $6.5 million) and movies that you'd only see if someone was paying you to do it (like the aforementioned Airbender).

Home shopping giant QVC is possibly the only entity to get more mileage out of the program than Shyamalan. Based in Chester County, Pennsylvania, QVC has received more than 60 different subsidies through the film tax credit program, accounting for more than $45 million, according to the state Department of Community and Economic Development's "Investment Tracker" online database.

Even the president has benefited from Pennsylvania's film subsidies.

Donald Trump's Fabulous World of Golf, a short-lived Golf Channel program that basically served as an extended infomercial for Trump-owned links around the world, received two subsidies (one for each season of the show) totaling $379,000 in 2010 and 2011. The show was produced by a Philadelphia-based production company.

A new report from Public Source, a Pittsburgh-based investigative journalism outfit, uncovers some startling problems with the film tax credit program—problems that go beyond the obvious one of asking taxpayers to subsidize multi-million-dollar productions that obviously don't need the help.

Because money is fungible and tax credits can be passed along from production studios to contractors and vendors, the Public Source analysis tracked how the tax credits were actually used. They found that 99 percent of all film tax credits were sold by production studios, often to businesses that have nothing to do with film or TV, essentially turning the film tax credit into "a backdoor tax break for some of the largest corporations and utilities operating in Pennsylvania."

"Out of $521 million in tax credits, we could only find evidence of about $3.5 million being used by film companies to offset their Pennsylvania taxes," they reported.

When Public Source asked the department to "detail any figures or metrics that it uses to evaluate the success or failure of the film tax credit program," its questions went unanswered. "The department also did not say how it evaluates which productions should receive a tax credit and which ones should not, which raises questions about the type of metrics used to evaluate the applicants," Public Source reported.

Policy expects on both sides of the aisle, who rarely see eye-to-eye, agree on the wastefulness of film subsidy programs.

"Jobs in the film industry are highly skilled and mobile, which means they do not create lasting economic benefits. If another state rolls out an even more generous tax credit, film production can simply pack up and leave for another soundstage. States that decide to shower the film industry with taxpayer funds are in a race to the bottom, as no credit is high enough to satisfy Hollywood executives," wrote Jared Meyer, a research fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a free market think tank, in a post for Reason last year.

Similarly, progressive groups like the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities have opposed film tax credits as a poor means of generating economic development and for padding Hollywood executives' pockets. "The film industry claims that they create jobs for local residents, but the most serious study of this issue found that out-of-state specialists — actors, writers, cinematographers, and so on — reap a disproportionate share of the benefits," wrote Robert Tannenwald, a professor of economics at Brandies University, in a 2011 report for CBPP, where he was a senior fellow at the time. "Residents get relatively low-paying jobs that disappear once a shoot is finished and the producer leaves town."

Some states have capped, limited, or even eliminated their film subsidy programs in recent years as criticism has grown. In 2009, when film tax subsidies peaked, 44 U.S. states, along with Puerto Rico and Washington D.C., offered some form of film or TV production incentives, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, which tracks state-level polices. By 2016, however, only 37 states still had film tax credit programs on the books, and many of those states had decreased the level of funding or limited how much a single project can receive—like Louisiana's newly approved limit of $30 million per project and $180 million per year.

Other states are expanding their subsidies, including California, which seems like the place least likely to have to incentivize the making of movies. Lawmakers there tripled the state's film incentive program budget to $330 million.

These programs persist because of the power of lobbyists and the appeal of the bright lights of Hollywood. Sometimes the two are one and the same, like when actor Kevin Spacey helped whip up votes in the Maryland state legislature for an expanded TV and film tax credit program in 2014. At the time, Spacey's popular Netflix show House of Cards (about the dirty side of politics, fittingly) was filmed in Maryland and producers were threatening to leave for California unless they were granted additional tax breaks from the state.

They got them.

Night Shyamalan has not had to resort to such tactics. The big twist here is that both parties have allowed Pennsylvania's subsidies to keep flowing—in July, the Republican-controlled state legislature and Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf agreed to expand the state's tax credit program to $65 million annually.

"Tax credits and subsidies, whether for Hollywood studios, alternative energy companies, or sport stadiums, flip the free market on its head," says Nate Benefield, director of research at the Harrisburg-based Commonwealth Foundation, which supports killing Pennsylvania's film subsidy program. "Businesses no longer succeed based on who has the best product, but who hires the best lobbyists."

Advertisement

NEXT: Ninth Circuit battle: May Arizona deny driver's licenses to beneficiaries of Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program?

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. Let’s be clear that Shyamalan is eastern Pennsylvania. Specifically, Bucks County, which might as well be Philadelphia, one of the three worst places in the universe.

    1. We have a lot of Pittsburgh transplants in Columbus and all the ones I’ve met seem like really cool people. But then you have Ben Roethlisberger.

      1. We have a lot of Pittsburgh transplants here in MB too. Of all the various transplants they are generally the coolest.

        1. Well hard not to be cool living on Mount Bacon:)

        2. Artistically, Pittsburgh has brought you such cinema as Striking Distance, Sudden Death and The Mothman Prophecies.

          1. My favorite part of Pennsylvania is away from both Philly and Pittsburg. Think north of I-80.

            1. OMG there are only hicks up there!

              1. I don’t go there for the people.

      1. Irrelevant, as Filthacrapia overshadows them all.

        1. I’d think it would still be worth knowing, “the second (or third) worst places in the universe” simply to avoid stopping there for gas

          1. “to avoid stopping there for gas”

            I used to avoid stopping in Mound City, Missouri for gas even if I had to pay more somewhere else.

          2. Probably includes Gary, Indiana, where I’ve avoided stopping for gas many times, but I’m not sure I’ve traveled the universe enough to name the worst 3 spots.

            1. I think “worst places in the universe” actually require the nexus of Space AND Time.

              Like “NYC Port Authority bus terminal, 1987-1989

              *skim page 10 for a rough sketch…. including =

              “”several hundred homeless people had, to various degrees, moved in.
              Dozens slept day and night, singly or in groups, on or besides stairs, bus
              gates, benches or in various interstitial areas. They did more than block
              a few routes; they openly took over whole sections. Some set up homes
              above the bus gates. Many installed electrical appliances and cooked
              meals. Inside the bus station, people had sex, shot heroin, gave birth and
              died. People urinated on walls and in elevators. Transients took over
              restrooms. Some fought and even killed over turf or other issues…”

              and that was only the first floor!

              1. Can this nexus be mobile? Such as an area with a radius of 10 yards, centered on a particular commenter?

              2. ^^it just occurred to me that the above might also serve as a description of H&R comment-section

              3. That was disgusting, but the regular NYers are worse, if more hygienic.

            2. Ah, good old Gary, Indiana. I was born there. Left while still a babe – to you ing to have any memories of the place. Never been back.

              I did drive by close enough to smell it once, though.

          3. Kayenta AZ has to be on the list. If you stop there for gas you have a good chance of seeing a guy pissing on a dumpster and then get hassled for money by the same guy when you come out of the convenience store. Not to mention gas will be 50 cents more per gallon than anywhere on either side of the reservation. The Navajo Nation knows how to tax.

            1. Okay, it’s clear to me that none of you knows what it takes to be a worst place in the universe. Get your heads in the game.

              1. Bor South Sudan?

              2. The vicinity of Shikha Dalmia?

              3. Kowloon Walled City?

                1. Has been gone for twenty years. Chungking Mansions would be an acceptable substitute.

              4. Is it DC, NYC or Boston?

    2. Romero isn’t eligible for them in western Pa.?

      1. Lot more votes in eastern PA.

    3. As a public service you should name the other two worstest places in the universe

      1. It’s a trick question. All three of them are Philadelphia. Except the other one, which is New Jerksey.

  2. I’m not sure “tax credits” and “tax subsidies” and “cost to taxpayers” all mean the same thing–or that they “cost” me anything as a taxpayer.

    And if California is being forced to roll back its awful tax regime because of competition from other states, I’m not sure that’s a bad thing either. As a Californian, if they were completely oblivious to competition from other states on taxes, then I might lose hope.

    I envy states with lower tax rates.

    I do not begrudge those individuals or companies who have to pay lower taxes on their hard earned money. That way lies the EU, where they sue Ireland to raise its corporate tax rate in the name of tax harmonization.

    1. Cudos for being faster on the draw:)

    2. These are called “tax credits” specifically to cause this kind of confusion. Film tax credits refund a portion of the budget, not the taxes, ergo, they’re subsidies.

      Movie productions have very little profit (movie distribution is where the profit is), so even a movie that spends $100m probably only pays about $5m in taxes (and that’s only if you assume that everything is taxed), but it typically gets tax credits “refunding” $30m.

      The movie studio can’t use these tax credits because they have almost no tax liability, so (and this is when they become subsidies) they SELL them to someone who does for 90c on the dollar.

      The state is, in effect, taking tax money from, say, Walmart (or someone else who DOES have a significant tax liability) and giving it to the film studio, it is NOT simply “not collecting taxes”.

      If the tax credits were non transferable and non refundable, then they’d just be tax cuts, but Hollywood doesn’t care about tax cuts because they’re incredibly good at hiding taxable income (which is why the movie distributors are all still based in California).

      1. Thanks for the info. Are these things like vouchers or are they actually giving the production company a check?

        1. In this example, Walmart cuts a check to the film studio for $27m in order to avoid paying $30m in taxes.

          From a tax standpoint, there’s no difference between directly refunding the movie studio $27m or going through an intermediary corporation. The state has spent $30m in tax revenue to generate $5m in tax revenue (even if you factor in secondary spending, you’re still only looking at maybe $8m).

          1. I should clarify that I’m talking about state taxes here, which typically only average around 5% for income/sales taxes, which are the only taxes that movie shoots pay.

            There’s very little profit on movie shoots and they don’t own property, so they’re only taxed on direct spending within the state.

      2. “The state is, in effect, taking tax money from, say, Walmart (or someone else who DOES have a significant tax liability) and giving it to the film studio, it is NOT simply “not collecting taxes”.

        “How Pennsylvania Taxpayers are Forced to Pay for Hollywood Hits Like Split (And Misses Like The Last Airbender)”

        When most people read that Pennsylvania’s taxpayers are being forced to pay for Hollywood hits, they don’t think they’re hearing about “taxpayers” when they hear about Wal*Mart. They think “taxpayers” is talking about average voters.

        And it sounds to me like Wal*Mart isn’t being forced to pay higher taxes in your scenario. If they’re paying 90 cents on the dollar, they’re getting off with paying 10% less in taxes.

        1. And it sounds to me like Wal*Mart isn’t being forced to pay higher taxes in your scenario. If they’re paying 90 cents on the dollar, they’re getting off with paying 10% less in taxes.

          If I am understanding it right, they aren’t paying any of that as a tax bill, they are paying the money to the studio, and PA gets nothing. I see the point of companies paying less tax is good, but I don’t see why the studio should make 27mil (in the example) for doing nothing other than selling their “tax credit”. That seems pretty shady to me.

          1. “I see the point of companies paying less tax is good, but I don’t see why the studio should make 27mil (in the example) for doing nothing other than selling their “tax credit”. That seems pretty shady to me.”

            If your problem is with the studio making money for nothing, then why are you directing your comments at an argument that’s merely claiming that the taxpayers aren’t really paying for the production?

            Again, the taxpayers do NOT appear to be paying for this production.

            1. Walmart can either pay $30m to the state as taxes or $27m to Hollywood as…. what?

              Let’s pretend this was a refundable tax credit rather than a transferable one.

              Hollywood gets a $30m check from Georgia less whatever taxes they owe (not much).
              Georgia gains ~$5m in taxes but “refunds” $30m.

              Let’s examine the transferable tax credit case;
              Hollywood gets a $27m check from Walmart.
              Walmart spends $27m to avoid paying $30m in tax.
              Georgia gains ~$5m in taxes but doesn’t collect $30m in tax money.
              Someone (a credit broker) gets a commission by hooking up Walmart & Hollywood.

              The only difference is that in the first case, it isn’t a single taxpayer giving money to Hollywood (it frequently isn’t in the second case, often these things are spread out amongst a number of taxpayers with credit brokers taking a commission for each “sale”).

              Any way you look at it, $27-30m has left the state, the mechanisms by which it did so don’t really matter that much.

              1. “Walmart can either pay $30m to the state as taxes or $27m to Hollywood as…. what?”

                You keep avoiding the central premise of my statement–going ’round and ’round in circles around it.

                The taxpayers aren’t paying anything.

                The taxpayers aren’t paying anything.

                The taxpayers aren’t paying anything.

                The headline says that, “Pennsylvania taxpayers are forced to pay for Hollywood hits”, but the taxpayers aren’t paying for anything.

                From what I can tell, no state income taxes, sales taxes, or any other kind of taxes are paying for any of these productions.

                1. Ken, the taxpayers are 100% paying for a ton of things, movies and shows included. Take the $36 million issued to Last Airbender. That’s $36 million that Pennsylvania now does not have.

                  100% of that $36 million in tax credits was sold to a third party in the state, often major corporations, insurance companies or banks (including ones that got bailouts).

                  Say Company X is going to owe $36 million in taxes to Pennsylvania. Airbender sells the $36 million in credits to Company X for 90-cents on the dollar and gets a check form Company X for $32 million and the studio laughs all the way to the bank.

                  Meanwhile, instead of paying any of the $36 million that Company X owes to the state (like you and other taxpayers have to do), they send in Airbender’s $36 million worth of tax credits and now the state has a bunch of useless paper instead of the $36 million tax revenue.

                  Company X owes nothing and got to pocket a few million that it saved by buying the credits. Airbender just got $32 million of its budget subsidized by the state taxpayers who, in turn, got a few hundred jobs that ended when production wrapped.

            2. If your problem is with the studio making money for nothing, then why are you directing your comments at an argument that’s merely claiming that the taxpayers aren’t really paying for the production?

              Uhh…I got nuthin. Point taken.

      3. Meanwhile, states like Pennsylvania and California being forced to compete with each other over their tax rates isn’t a bad thing–unless you’re like a socialist EU commissioner and you’re trying stop other countries from having to compete with Ireland’s low tax rate.

        “A historic bridge was crossed last week when the European Commission, in the person of its competition commissioner Margrethe Vestager, announced that Apple’s tax arrangements with Ireland were illegal and, as a consequence, the company would have to pay ?11 billion pounds in back taxes to the Irish government ? which [the Irish government] does not want. Indeed, so adamant is the Irish coalition government on this point that it is now appealing against the EU ruling.”

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…..-is-in-th/

        1. If there was any single thing that showed why Brexit is a good thing, it’s this whole EU vs Ireland/Apple kerfuffle. I don’t understand how anyone can say it should be illegal for a sovereign nation to bring jobs to their country and improve the commonwealth, but I guess they just can’t have them showing the fallacy of socialism.

          1. And that’s just one example.

            The fact is that the more powerful countries in the EU simply don’t want to have to compete with Ireland on tax rates.

          2. I think the problem is that Apple really doesn’t have much of its operations there, just a skeleton but are claiming its their headquarters.

            1. The problem is that it isn’t just Apple. They want to do away with Ireland competing with other EU countries on corporate tax rates:

              “Less than two months after the European Union ordered Ireland to claw back a record ?13 billion from Apple, saying the nation illegally allowed the iPhone maker to reduce its tax rate, the European Commission will propose legislation for a common consolidated corporate tax base (CCCTB) on Tuesday. A 2011 initiative failed to muster the unanimity needed largely because of opposition by Ireland and the UK . . . . The plan would save cross-border companies the cost of complying with different rules in each EU country where they file a tax return by establishing a single method for calculating taxable profits.”

              http://www.irishtimes.com/busi…..-1.2841042

              That it would stop powerful countries like France and Germany from having to worry about countries like Ireland from competing with them on tax rates hardly even crossed the EU’s mind, I’m sure.

              1. Incidentally, none of the other countries themselves seem to be going after Ireland. The actual national governments likely realize that if they made Apple Pay their (e.g. French or German) taxes they would reduce their operations in those countries.

                That’s what made the ordeal so bizarre. The ‘victimized’ country’s don’t seem to want ‘their’ money. It mainly seems born of the initiative of some EU bureaucrats.

      4. Uwe Boll made a living farming German tax credits for filming – at least until the Germans changed the rules and made it unprofitable for him to continue.

        Probably did it specifically because of him, actually.

    3. Don’t worry. As soon as PA declares itself a Sanctuary State for the arts, Reason will turn around on this issue too.

  3. “turning the film tax credit into “a backdoor tax break for some of the largest corporations and utilities operating in Pennsylvania.”

    There is difference, in my mind at least, between subsides and tax credits. The former is taking money and redistributing it, the second is not taking money. You could certainly debate the “fairness” of who gets the tax breaks but from the above statement it sounds like the people of Pennsylvania are getting them through potentially lower prices on utilities and corporate products and from potential jobs at corporations who like the opportunity to pay lower taxes in PA whether PA intended that or not. I’m all for less taxes.

    1. Exactly. When you start conflating the two you get leftists complaining that oil companies are getting money from the government, or stealing from taxpayers, just because they get the same tax write offs that every other company gets.

      1. When you start conflating the two you get leftists complaining that oil companies are getting money from the government, or stealing from taxpayers, just because they get the same tax write offs that every other company gets.

        This is what I was going to say. I understand that picking out certain industries for targeted tax relief can have bad consequences, but it is not a subsidy. A subsidy in my mind, is when government gives cold hard cash in the form of grants to some well connected donor to start a solar panel manufacturing business.

        Granted some oil companies do get what could be seen as a subsidy via Ex-Im Bank, but that thing should die.

    2. If a film shoot pays $5m in taxes but gets $30m as a tax “refund”, that’s not a tax cut, is it?

      …but that’s how film tax credits work.

      Pa taxpayers are is paying higher taxes so the film studios (based in Ca.) can subsidize 25-30% of their movie.

      They call these things “transferable/refundable tax credits” so that nobody realizes exactly what’s going on.

      1. Interesting. Good to know. Thanks.

      2. But the total amount being paid in taxes is less than it would be were it not for the transferable credit. (That’s if it’s even transferable; there are ways of contracting to reap the benefit of excess untransferable credit too.) If the tax credit were repealed, it’s not like the state would be taxing anyone any less, is it?

        1. If the total amount being refunded is higher than the total amount being collected, then the state is actively losing money, isn’t it?

          This is what happened in Louisiana in the last year of Jindal’s governorship – total refunds exceeded total receipts.

          That deficit has to be made up by taxing people more in exchange for giving the money to a handful of favored industries

          All tax credits should be non refundable & non transferable, give people tax cuts, not subsidies.

          1. The state is losing money out of what it could otherwise have collected. They’re not actually laying out $. The amount being refunded is certainly not greater than the total amount of tax the state takes in. It may be more than any single taxpayer pays, but not more than the total tax paid by all the businesses that share the rebate.

    3. For industry or company specific tax credits, there is functionally no difference between a tax credit and a subsidy. Is there a difference between taking $40 from you and then giving you 20 back, and taking only 20 to begin with? Not really.

    4. A ‘tax *rebate*’ is simply not taking money – that’s were you get your taxes paid back, up to the amount you paid.

      A tax credit is issued against your tax bill and if its larger than the tax bill you get to keep the excess.

      Its why, when I was looking at health insurance on the PPACA exchanges I was surprised as hell that of the $700 dollar ‘tax credit’, any I didn’t spend I got back at the end of the year with my tax return.

    5. You are confusing film “tax credits” with normal tax credits. The latter, as you say, do only lower the tax burden. But the former are transferable (or refundable in many states). Why? Because the temporary production companies set up to produce a film or show do not owe or pay taxes in states like Pennsylvania. On paper, they spend their entire existence losing money, as it was spent to make the project. Profits, if any, come later and flow to the parent studios in California. This is precisely why these film “tax credits” MUST be refundable or transferable, as they would be totally worthless if they functioned as the standard, run of the mill, tax credit that you are in favor of.

      So the productions either get full cash value for their “tax credits” when they are refundable (like in New Mexico) or roughly 90-cents on the dollar when they are transferable and must be sold to a third party. If you want to give a break to the companies buying the credits, then do that. It would be MUCH cheaper for the state. Instead, they are providing a huge subsidy that covers 25% or more of any film or show budget filming in the state.

  4. My disappointment when I misread that at Mises, The Last Airbender.

    1. I did the same thing. But reason would hardly recognize a libertarian like Mises, when the have shika on board.

      1. Enjoy this. You may not agree with it, but it’s at least more insightful than Shiko.

        1. I like bill burr but i hate his version of “everyman wisdom” which amounts to a bunch of paper-thin anti-corporate conspiracy theories that imagines we need a Ralph Nader-type to come in and ‘stop all the greedy companies and bankers’ from fucking all the working-schmucks over.

          1. Similar to George Carlin. He’s not going to provide a Hans-Herman Hoppe deconstruction of the inherent problems with democracy, but you will get someone who gets you to think that maybe the assholes at the top are lying their asses of off to you. And I love the Boston “fuck you” attitude.

          2. This. He gets so close…then right of the rails.

            1. I’ve always suspected he knows exactly what he’s doing and that his “half working-class grouch / half-proggy-anti-corporate”-thing is actually a calculated posture, knowing that it works the best with the widest number of people while providing a defense from either direction.

              or not, whatever.

            2. It’s because there is no questions of the inherent problems with power. He has the same idea of most people, which is that the problem isn’t the system, it’s that the wrong people are in power. The system would work if a person who just actually cared was in.

              That jump from saying the people are wrong, to saying that the system is inherently flawed conceptually is the major jump of libertarianism I think.

              1. That jump from saying the people are wrong, to saying that the system is inherently flawed conceptually is the major jump of libertarianism I think.

                I agree.

                I think it comes from the first basic realization that politics functions just like an economy – everything works on incentives.

                you stop worrying about the moral-character of individuals, and just assume that everyone could be excellent or awful, and that the best system is the one in which it doesn’t *matter* whether they’re excellent or awful.

        2. I haven’t finished it, but I agree that we get what we deserve collectively.

    2. I thought he was saying that he liked The Last Airbender but was talking like Jar Jar Binks.

  5. … aboutthe horrific machinations of a man with more than 20 personalities living inside his brain.

    He made a documentary about Dave Weigel and his years spent trolling the commentariat at Reason? Sounds the worst, most boring movie ever.

    1. “a man with more than 20 personalities”

      Or a woman who became a man. Would that be a transgendered man I assume or a transgendered woman? Not that I really give a shit.

    2. He made a documentary about Gayve Pee-gel and his years spent trolling the commentariat at Treason? Sounds the worst, most boring movie ever.

  6. What is your favorite Gin Eric? How do you take yours?

  7. Iraq prelate backs preference for minority refugees fleeing genocide

    “[Catholic] Archbishop Bashar Warda of Erbil tells Crux that as long as special preferences under Trump’s new refugee order are for all victims of ISIS and not just Christians alone, it will help, and that Christians “celebrated when Trump won” in hopes it would mark an end to U.S. neglect….

    “Here in Iraq we Christians cannot afford to throw out words carelessly as the media in the West can do. I would ask those in the media who use every issue to stir up division to think about this. For the media these things become an issue of ratings, but for us the danger is real.”

  8. OTPa. teacher facing charges she had sex with 16-year-old girl

    Police say the teacher admitted to having sexual contact with a 16-year-old girl at the school, according to the station.

    The victim told police the relationship began with a note passed to Scott, asking: “How would you feel if I kissed you?” Scott allegedly responded, saying she would not tell anyone.

    Scott also allegedly told police that she had written more than 30 letters to the former student, reports Philly.com.

    1. So the girl initiated things but is still “the victim”?

      1. She always is. Even if she murders you in cold blood, the Gloria Allreds of the world will still blame you for the trauma the whole experienced caused her.

    2. is it just that the news knows that readers LOVE the “oversexed middle/high-school female teacher sleeping with her teenage students”-stories….

      …or is it that these things actually happen surprisingly often? Because you seem to have some non-stop newsfeed of them.

      1. It’s baffing that the teachers think it’s going to stay a secret.

        1. Maybe it happens far more often than we know, and most of the time the secret gets kept.

  9. OT: Texas high school math teacher pleads GUILTY to engaging in sexual activity with two 17-year-old students – but WON’T have to register as a sex offender

    Wey was allegedly involved in two different months-long relationships with teenage boys at the high school.

    Police say the crimes occurred during the summer and fall of 2015.

    Wey met the first boy at a student ministry program in June of this year, and later, that summer accompanied him and his family to Africa on a ministry trip.

    While on that trip she and the student, 17, had sex approximately ten times according to an affidavit acquired by 48 Hours’ Crimesider.

    The two then had a months-long relationship that ended when the student learned that Wey and another student, also 17, had been out together on a hike this fall.

    The first student eventually told his parents about his alleged relationship with Wey, while the second student said they engaged in ‘sexual contact’ while out on their hike.

    The best take on this demonic female.

    1. So she gets 20 years for having sex with a 17 yo and this guys gets 11 for setting a woman on fire?

      http://nbc4i.com/2017/01/26/wo…..-in-court/

      1. Well, as a teacher, she can’t be fired. So the only other option is to lock her up until she’s no longer attractive

    2. After reviewing the photographic evidence of the woman, I am dismissing the charges.

  10. Tax credits = tax cuts. It’d be better if everyone got them, but they’re still a good thing.

    1. If I pay $5m in taxes but get $30m as a tax refund, that’s not a tax cut, is it?

      …but that’s how film tax credits work.

      1. The total amount owed in taxes by the businesses sharing the credit is reduced, so it’s a cut, all right.

        1. 99% of GA businesses & residents end up paying a higher rate of tax so that a the 1% who buy the credits pay marginally less tax and a handful of companies (movie studios) get refunds far in excess of the taxes they pay.

          … that’s not a tax cut, that’s forced redistribution of wealth.

          I’m honestly curious, are you a tax credit broker? You certainly don’t appear to be a libertarian or conservative.

          1. You’re not figuring the books properly from the state’s side of it. Nobody pays a higher rate of tax because of the credits. If the credits were abolished, that wouldn’t lower anybody’s taxes; the state would simply have a greater total take.

        2. 99% of GA businesses & residents end up paying a higher rate of tax so that a the 1% who buy the credits pay marginally less tax and a handful of companies (movie studios) get refunds far in excess of the taxes they pay.

          … that’s not a tax cut, that’s forced redistribution of wealth.

          I’m honestly curious, are you a tax credit broker? You certainly don’t appear to be a libertarian or conservative.

        3. If the state collects a billion dollars from one half of the population and gives it to the other half, would you say their tax rate is 0%?

          Of course not. This is not a tax cut.

          1. So as long as the state is spending, any reduction in anyone’s tax is not a cut?

        4. You are forgetting that the film credits are often refundable, meaning that even if the production doesn’t pay or owe any taxes, they still get a full cash payment for the value of the credits. Have $5 million in film tax credits but don’t have any taxes to pay? Here is a check for $5 million. That’s not a tax cut, it’s a huge handout to an entity that has contributed nothing to the state’s revenue.

    1. interesting.

      my amateur-detective says = “Eastern European organized crime, with help from insider who tipped them off”.

      An mobbed up Russian who lived on my block once explained to me once that a lot of certain kind of car-theft is for overseas. certain model mercs and Lexus SUV’s etc – otherwise fairly anonymous but mid-high-$ cars – get stolen and then stripped and shipped to Eastern Bloc countries where they’re rebuilt and sold/traded. I’d guess this was similar, albeit smarter/more opportunistic.

      1. A friend of mine who lived in Eastern Ontario told me that he was told by the local cops that that any up market car stolen in that area would be in a shipping container on the Montreal docks within two hours and within a month would be being driven around Moscow or some other ex-Soviet city. No chop shop for Range Rovers, BMWs etc, these cars were shipped whole to Russia.

        One canard even had it that one guy from the area was on a trip to Russia and saw his Ford Expedition on a street in Moscow with the Ontario plates still attached (I’m sure there are many versions of the story told; frankly it sounds a little too Urban Legendy to me but I’m sure the larger narrative on car theft is valid*).

        *those who watched “The Wire” will recall a similar story line about the longshoreman who was diverting cars from the auto terminal at the Port of Baltimore to a mob that was identified as being sort of multi ethnic eastern euro types.

        1. No chop shop for Range Rovers, BMWs etc, these cars were shipped whole to Russia.

          Maybe that’s the case. I think w/ the volume they get in the NYC area its probably a mix of “shipped whole” and “disassembled”; iow, i think it probably depends on the port and what sort of shipping traffic is more-easily made surreptitious.

          the part i found interesting was that he said it was very specific about the models of vehicles they went for – not necessarily the ‘top of the line’, but rather specific models in the upper-mid-range which coincided with export versions. NA-only cars would obviously stand out, while others could be quickly converted to Int’l spec.

        2. “those who watched “The Wire” will recall a similar story line about the longshoreman who was diverting cars from the auto terminal at the Port of Baltimore to a mob that was identified as being sort of multi ethnic eastern euro types.”

          There was a similar situation in an episode of the Sopranos, too.

    2. Second thought…

      who the hell steals Jaguar motors? you would lead a trail of oil right to your mob hideout.

      1. They went back for parts, too!

      2. IIANM, quality at both Jaguar and Land Rover improved immeasurably after Ford took them over.

        Also, I believe that the Land Rover uses a version of the Rover V8 which was originally developed by Buick.

        1. It’s pretty bad when ford engineering is considered a quality improvement

  11. I wonder how much Pennsylvania pays to resettle refugees? But Neo-libertarians love refugees and hate tax breaks.

    1. IOW if the leftists recharacterized all their handouts as tax credits you’d be fine with them. Who knew the only difference between socialism and libertarianism was semantics? And fear of Arabs of course.

      1. Semantics? Bullshit. Handouts not taking somebody’s money

        1. Handouts are not equal to not taking somebody’s money.*

  12. “A state-run program that subsidizes film and television productions gave Shyamalan, … more than $12 million in tax credits …..Shyamalan scored another $36 million from Pennsylvania

    For Split, though, Pennsylvania granted a mere $2.6 million in tax credits.

    There’s no relationship between the quality of a movie and whether or not it gets subsidies, of course. ”

    I am not sure what is going on here. Are we conflating check writing with tax credits? Is PA laying taxpayer dollars in Shamy’s palm, or are they just taking less from him? Not taking is giving? Or is giving giving? What exactly is a tax credit as opposed to a subsidy?

    “The tax credit functions as a 25 percent rebate on practically any expense connected to filming in Pennsylvania, … but to qualify a project must spend at least 60 percent of its budget in-state.”

    “… tax credits can be passed along from production studios to contractors and vendors,… They found that 99 percent of all film tax credits were sold by production studios, often to businesses that have nothing to do with film or TV, essentially turning the film tax credit into “a backdoor tax break for some of the largest corporations and utilities operating in Pennsylvania.”

    “Out of $521 million in tax credits, we could only find evidence of about $3.5 million being used by film companies to offset their Pennsylvania taxes,”

    I really have no idea what is going on here. The language is confusing which makes me think it is a giant boondoggle.

    1. I don’t really either. Especially this part:

      tax credits can be passed along from production studios to contractors and vendors,… They found that 99 percent of all film tax credits were sold by production studios, often to businesses that have nothing to do with film or TV, essentially turning the film tax credit into “a backdoor tax break for some of the largest corporations and utilities operating in Pennsylvania

      How does that work?

      1. I’ve noticed that these articles never really explain how film tax credits work, suffice it to say that they “refund” vastly more money than they generate in tax revenue.

        What’s worse is that there’s a whole cottage industry of credit brokers who make money selling tax credits from the movie studios to local industry, selling people’s tax money and taking a percentage.

    2. It’s a giant boondoggle.

      They use the term “tax credit” to disguise the fact that it refunds substantially more money than they’re taking in, something that nobody writing these articles EVER seems to articulate.

      eg. A film shoots a $100m movie in Georgia, paying (including income taxes on workers) roughly $5m in taxes.
      Ga issues a 30% tax credit to the movie studio.
      The movie studio doesn’t have a $30m tax bill, so they sell the credit to someone who does, say, Walmart for 90c on the dollar.
      Walmart pays the movie studio $27m to reduce their tax bill by $30m, so they’re happy.
      The movie studio reduced the cost of making their movie by 27%, so they’re happy.
      The state collected $5m in new taxes by not collecting $30m from Walmart, and they hope their residents never figure out what’s going on.

      Georgia, incidentally, spent $600+m on these things last year to generate something like 1.2m workdays for residents – that’s a subsidy cost of about $130,000 per job. Jobs that probably average about half that in pay and a hell of a lot less in taxes.

      Any time you see “refundable tax credit” or “transferable tax credit” it’s a subsidy. Tax cuts are explicitly “non refundable tax credits” because they don’t refund more taxes than get paid.

      1. What the hell? That’s craziness. I have never heard of that before. Thanks for the clarification.

        1. No problem.

          As I say, NOBODY ever seems to explain this in their articles, but the tax credits are based on “qualified spending” and not taxes.

          This is how movie tax credits work WORLDWIDE.

          If you think the NFL gets a lot of subsidy money for their stadia, it’s nothing compared to the subsidies people give Hollywood (just CA, GA & NY combined gave Hollywood $1.4bn last year, factor in other states & countries and you’re looking at probably triple that.

          1. what’s the excuse? everyone’s just star-struck and wants to be able to feel like if a movie is filmed in their area, “Wow we must be important” or something?

            I don’t get why people would put up w/ it.

            1. It’s a good way to appear to “generate” jobs quickly – the film industry is highly mobile, give them free money and they’ll show up with their white trucks and “generate” jobs, there’s no waiting around for factories to get built.

              The downside is that as soon as you stop paying them, they leave just as quickly. Furthermore, most of the really highly paid jobs are filled with guys they bring with them from California, so most of the money spent leaves the state as soon as the movie wraps.

              1. Maybe it works in ‘target districts” where you want to direct spending

                1. Probably, but the cost is staggering.

                  An Average film industry job costs $130k/yr in subsidies (both GA & MA came up with this number), compare that with even Nevada’s widely derided Gigafactory incentives which only cost $10k/yr and that’s mostly in foregone revenue rather than refunding taxes that were never paid. Most industries don’t get close to this.

                  Film incentives are a mug’s game, but because the entertainment industry also own the news media (literally, they’re all part of the same multinationals) nobody ever reports on it, or if they do, it’s typically a badly disguised advertisement touting supposed benefits without any context or criticism.

      2. Wow, Matte! Never knew any of that. That is just horrible.

        I’m in Atlanta and the film industry has become a lot more prominent, even just since I moved here ~5 years ago.

        I consider it to be a major nuisance*, but the local pols and talking heads are always going on about how good it is for the state because it brings money in, employs people, etc., so I always bought into it. But I get it now. It’s just a high-profile way for them to say ‘hey look we brought jobs and are making Georgia the third media capitol of the country!’ when all they really did is buy off the film industry with sweet tax money.

        *(always blocking off high-traffic roads… and the film industry people are assholes in my experience… all of the negative stereotypes are true. even the morons making $10/hr to get coffee for the boom-mic operator have this bizarre, undeserved air of superiority… probably a part of the fake-it-till-you-make-it mentality, I’d guess)

        1. Georgia currently has the highest subsidy spending of any state in the nation, it spent $606m on film incentives last year (up from $500m in ’15 and $290m in ’14) – now that Louisiana is broke, a lot of movies have relocated to GA which is why you’re seeing more productions and spending more tax money on them.

          Of course, they’ll tell you that this resulted from $2bn in direct spending in the state of Georgia and their favorite figure of “$7bn in economic impact!”.

          It’s all nonsense;
          1: Spending money in Georgia and giving money to Georgians is not the same thing, most of that $2bn goes to high priced talent flown in from California.
          2: GA’s film subsidies jumped by 20% last year, but resulted in only a 1% increase in workdays for GA residents (see point 1).
          3: The $7bn “economic impact” number is based on some highly dubious assertions, namely an “economic multiplier” (an estimate of indirect spending) of 3.5, a number the GA budget office can’t explain, it’s just “what we’ve always used”. The real figure is maybe 2, probably less.
          4. Despite all this talk of ripple spending, which is vastly overblown, the fact is that the state “refunded” $600m in taxes to generate maybe $150m in new taxes, which is why every independent study shows that film tax incentives are a huge money loser for any state that employs them.

          It’s all hand waving and doublespeak to disguise the fact that all they did was spend a fortune to get Hollywood to move their movie productions to Atlanta.

          1. Thanks for the information. However, this is the Reason comments, and around here we just complain about the writers and engage in bawdy humor, so take your fancy book learnin’ talk elsewhere!

            1. Well, hopefully somebody learnt sumfink 🙂

              Besides, it’s not like the news networks are going to report on this, they’re all owned by the same media & entertainment conglomerates that are getting the subsidies;

              Fox – 21st Century Fox
              NBC – Universal Pictures
              ABC – Disney Pictures
              CNN – Warner Bros
              HBO – Warner Bros

              In addition, all of these networks are heavily subsidized for their TV shows.

              It’s really up to print media & independent publications like Reason to draw attention to this nonsense.

              1. I agree. Your explanation has been enlightening.

                1. No, it’s been endarkening. The business directly qualifying for the credit may take in more $ total than they’re paying in taxes, but they’re taking that excess from other businesses that would otherwise have been paying it in taxes.

                  1. Why should Walmart effectively pay $30m in taxes so Hollywood can get a refund of $27m on a $5m tax liability?

                    Subsidies like this result in a higher tax burden for everyone in the state, giving the money to Hollywood instead of the state Government just means that everyone else pays more.

                    Georgia would be better off scrapping the film subsidies and letting each family keep the $250 a year that these things cost them.

                    1. t doesn’t cost those families anything. When the state takes less from someone, that doesn’t make the state take more from someone else.

                    2. They’re not taking less, they’re giving. The more they give to welfare recipients, the more they take from someone.

                    3. There’s no direct cx between any expenditures & taxes. And these aren’t even expenditures, they’re just decreases in the amount taken in taxes.

          2. Who cares how much any films pay in taxes. Everyone should be paying less in taxes.

            All these discussions revolve around taxes based on tax credits and that, for example, gives more tax credits than they are taking in for taxes.

            Its about keeping government budgets low, taxes low and jobs and money spent in Georgia.

            Of course, there is a tax incentive to get movies made in Georgia, which is the whole point. The movie movies made in Georgia, the more money is spent in Georgia. Tax revenue fills the government coffers and we want less of that.

      3. You are conflating refundable credits with credits that are either directly transferable or can be indirectly shared by businesses. A refundable credit can result in more $ paid out by the state than taken in, but a merely transferable or shareable credit can’t.

        1. It doesn’t matter whether the state gives Hollywood $30m or the state refunds Walmart $30m and they then give Hollywood 90% of that.

          The state is out $27m.

          All you’ve done is make the tax payable to Hollywood instead of the state.

          There might be an argument for that if Hollywood was in Georgia, but it’s not, is it?

          1. The state is “out” the $ they don’t take. Not taking is not the same as giving.

            1. By this logic, as long as the state spends all the money it takes, we can say the tax rate is 0.

              What do we call it when the state takes a net sum from some people and gives a net sum to other people?

              1. That’s redistribution. But the only way you don’t have redistribution is if magically the state gives everyone back the exact amount they paid, as individuals, in taxes: in other words, a 100% tax rebate for everybody, and the gov’t employees doing it don’t get paid.

  13. Just saw an ad for Earth Hour. It’s coming up on March 28th. In connection with this, I’m reminding everyone here to use all the electricity you can in your home during Earth Hour.

    1. *makes note to start saving plastic, and sets reminder to burn on March 28th*

      Thanks for the heads up.

    2. March 28th. The day I light a fire in honor of Mother Earth using all the used motor oil and old tires I accumulated during the previous year.

  14. Ahem. He cast (horrible) white actors for a Tibetan character and two Inuit characters. smh, more fake news from Reason.

    1. After motherfucking After Earth, the fact that the guy is still taken seriously in any movie-related capacity, even stocking the crafts table, is the epitome of fake news.

    1. That’s a fantastic video which also seems to very clearly apply to some folks working for a certain orange-themed publication.

      (It always seems to come down to cocktail parties.)

  15. OT

    Robby Soave ?@robbysoave 18h18 hours ago
    More
    And @nero fiddled as Berkeley burned (okay, I’m done).

    The canonical historical account is that Nero intentionally set the fire. This comparison implies that the Christians burned Rome because Nero said mean things (that really aren’t all that mean).

    It also implies that Milo (Nero) is the really violent one and the rioters (Roman Christians) are really just poor victims.

    Still, kudos to Robby for realizing that Milo’s handle is @nero and vaguely remembering something from high school about Nero. I’m sure that was very clever to people whose world views and identities revolve around Twitter handles.

    1. I don’t think he’s actually factoring in the historical or fictional accounts of the burning of Rome, I think he’s just using the saying to try and go “Oh, Milo’s engaging in pointless activity while the left is being violent, and that activity won’t actually solve the problem.” Of course, this may also have the implication that Robby feels that he’s been more productive on the subject, which is laughable at best.

      Considering Robby doesn’t seem to know anything about his own country’s history, much less Roman, this is not surprising. This is a guy who thinks protectionism is some ‘dark moment’ of American economic history, instead of pretty common until the end of the Second World War.

      1. I think he’s just using the saying to try and go “Oh, Milo’s engaging in pointless activity while the left is being violent, and that activity won’t actually solve the problem.”

        yeah, something like that.

        there is a regularly-employed rhetorical trope used by millenials which accuses people of guilt for “failing to do something” or care-hard enough about some bullshit-exaggerated-injustice. Its part of their whole generational “And here’s why that’s a problem!”-itis.

        they’re constantly transferring responsibility away from the ‘thing itself’ to onlookers/bystanders, otherwise disinterested people. Which basically underpins their collectivist beliefs about why either “white people” or “america” are the cause of the world’s ills.

        they demand performative-acts of “pretending to care”. “Milo should have made a statement! and wrung his hands and even apologized and”…. of course you know how that would have done nothing except given his critics some angle to further their maniacal attacks.

        1. there is a regularly-employed rhetorical trope used by millenials which accuses people of guilt for “failing to do something”

          This gets into not-totally-free-speech being better than, but eventually yielding to, compelled speech. And it’s how Robby’s shallow thinking leads him to denounce conservative students being mildly agitating.

          The rioters were supposedly insisting Milo stop saying things that they don’t like (not-totally-free-speech), but SJWs more-and-more tend toward compelling people to say the right things (see Trump getting blasted for not talking about Jews and The Holocaust the right way).

          Canada is contemplating criminalizing Islamophobia. That is not-totally-free-speech that, when implemented, can easily/will probably lead to compelled speech. That is why SJWs are actually dangerous and not just silly, easily-triggered people who ‘get it wrong once in awhile.’

          1. there is a regularly-employed rhetorical trope used by millenials which accuses people of guilt for “failing to do something”

            But it only works one way. How many refugee families do you think the CEO of Lyft could sponsor into the country? Surely all the rich liberal celebrities furiously signaling could take some into their posh Manhattan apartments.

            “We need to be compassionate” always means “everyone who pays taxes” and “they’re no threat to our neighborhoods!” means “Well, we’re pretty sure, which is why we’re settling them outside of Beverly Hills. On your dime.”

          2. I wouldn’t say the Holocaust thing is a typical SJW issue, the only reason why it became a thing is because they want to frame Trump as a fascist. The statement was a very generic thing about how people in general had suffered in the Holocaust, and if the WH had done the opposite and focused on Jews there would have been the opposite spin of “Trump mentions Jews but doesn’t care about homosexuals, other minorities, etc.” It’s specifically a gotcha either way you look at it.

            However, other events, like the responses to Gavin McInnes, particularly after he wrote that article arguing that transgender people were mentally ill, show that willingness to curtail or compel speech if it doesn’t fit into their little bubble.

          3. SJWs more-and-more tend toward compelling people to say the right things (see Trump getting blasted for not talking about Jews and The Holocaust the right way)

            That’s what i was referring to. the idea that he’s even-more-culpable for things he’s “Not doing”

            (‘fiddling while rome burns’)

            As though he has some power to stop these people if he only said the right words. which is absurd. It pretends the rioters are rational and only seek a certain kind of dialogue which they’re being denied. They don’t want dialogue at all.

            as i think you or someone else said yesterday, the thing that’s so galling about Robby’s contempt of Milo is that Milo is actually “doing something” about the stuff that Robby writes about all the time (“campus political correctness”). He actually says things that are near-identical w/ Soave-criticisms of Title IX/speech codes, etc.;

            of course he goes farther and blames the perpetrators of being in bad-faith and being dishonest actors – while robby thinks pleading will be more-effective (despite all evidence to the contrary). They differ mostly in style, strategy, but not much in their own estimation of the ‘problem’.

            you’d think he’d at least throw him a bone and give him credit for being the lone figure taking the fight to ‘the streets’. but no.

      2. I think he’s just using the saying to try and go “Oh, Milo’s engaging in pointless activity while the left is being violent, and that activity won’t actually solve the problem.”

        Wow. In a way, that’s an even more damning model of Robby’s thought processes than what I had suggested.

    2. Robby assured us this is all tactical. Rings as true as “Trump is just trolling.”

  16. So my gun rights wishlist for the new Administration:

    1. Repeal the Hughes Amendment.

    2. Pass the Hearing Protection Act.

    3. Repeal the NFA stamp procedure and drastically cut the tax.

    4. Rescind all gun control EOs particularly the import bans.

    5. National CCW Reciprocity.

    1. I actually oppose #5, because I come from a state with very low requirements to get a CCW, and I worry reciprocity would create end up imposing additional requirements (through harmonization).

      1. Excellent point, definitely an issue. Maybe the courts are the answer here, the 2nd needs to be treated like the 1st, the 4th, and the rest of the Amendments. State governments cannot establish a church or perform warrantless searches, they should not be able to restrict the carrying of a weapon the way they do.

  17. Not happy about the tax subsidies, but I actually liked The Last Airbender.

    Admittedly, I never watched the cartoon it was based on, so that may be why as a lot of the complaints I hear are about the the differences between the movie’s tone and the cartoon’s tone.

    1. We used to complain if a movie wasn’t as good as the book. Now we’re complaining they’re not as good as the cartoon.

  18. Speaking of taxes, my oldest daughter (a Bernie supporter) is lamenting the fact that for the first time she actually owes taxes instead of getting a fat refund check. Needless to say, I’ve been having some fun with that, sarcasm in hyperdrive and all that:)

    1. I suppose if you told her “the older you get, the more they will take” it would start to sink in a little.

      1. Oh she’s a smart girl, I have no doubt she’ll eventually “get it”. She lets her heart get in the way of her brain, but I already see her starting to understand reality versus what she was taught in school.

  19. Way, way, random OT:

    Dunno if anyone is into R/C stuff or multirotors, but…
    Apparently Reason got one of these tiny camera quadcopters.

    I got one just to screw around with and find it nearly impossible to fly FPV.
    1) it’s unusually heavy for its size, due to the camera. I’m pretty sure it uses the same motors as other tiny quads, but weighs more. So you end up with like half of the TWR which makes it very hard to control and not agile at all (bad for indoors, which is really the only place you can fly it).
    2) The camera lag is noticeable. 0.25 second? 0.5 second? That’s still way too much to correct for.

    It’s almost impossible to keep the thing in the air for more than a few seconds without crashing it.

    I’d recommend upgrading to something a little bit more expensive (probably like an extra $30), with enough power to actually compensate for the added weight of the camera.

    1. @VP ……he was white. This is BLACK History Month.

      ? cx cope (@cxcope) February 2, 2017

      Get that, Pence? You have to talk about black people this month.

      #SJWCompelledSpeech

      @VP emancipation is not black history. It did not free slaves, just deligitimized slavery. Black history is what we did for America.

      ? Chris Chandler (@cjchandler77) February 2, 2017

      emancipation did not free slaves #BHM #IFuckingLoveHistory

      1. emancipation did not free slaves

        He probably thinks he’s smarter than I am.

      2. #HotSauceInMyPurse

    1. Are they not suffering enough?

    1. Another helmet vs. hood link? Is this a weekly thing?

      1. It’s kind of an annoying thing I do on weekends – post on stereotypical hot topics like the Civil War, circumcision, and deep dish pizza.

        For a time I was shamed into quitting, but I picked up the habit again.

        1. Well, if you ever post a link to a story about General Grant liking foreskin topped deep dish pizza, I am not clicking on it.

    2. I always demand apologies from people who refuse to choose circumcision but I wish there was an easy way to find out who they are…..armbands maybe? And the circumcised will need something else..say, stars?

    3. It’s funny that she claims AAP endorses not circumcising but doesn’t link to anything directly from them. Maybe it’s because they reversed their position 5 years ago. They say it should ultimately be up to the parents, though they believe that the benefits outweigh the risks.

      *Not arguing a position, just fighting disinformation.

  20. Here is a more respectful (but NSFW) way to celebrate Black History Month.

    Let’s see Abe Lincoln top *that!*

    1. Saw that on Rare. I hope Heroic Mulatto got a chance to see those pics before he left, because that girl is thicc.

      1. HM left Reason? God fucking damn it.

        1. I’m not certain, but I haven’t seen him since the diaspora.

          1. I was gone for a few days and missed what happened. Can someone give me a rundown, or point me to the comment thread(s) that explains it?

            1. First Reason writers spammed over a dozen articles on the refugee EO, repeating the same thing over and over again, which annoyed the hell out of some people, who left. Shortly afterwards, sloppy was informed via email by KMW that they wouldn’t be covering his mom’s assault by police. The fact that Reason seems unwilling to cover police abuse stories (especially one so ‘close to home’, given that they even used sloppy’s daughter as part of their begathon this year) while mass-producing garbage caused another mass exodus of people, many of which who have been here for years. Sloppy and Banjos are obviously gone, along with people like RC, Swiss Servator, Hamster of Doom, Riven, etc.

              Basically, people are getting sick of Reason’s decline in content and gradually leaving, most of the PM Links threads over the past couple days have a people saying their goodbyes.

              1. OK. Thanks John. I’ll check out some past PM links. I guess I was seeing bits and pieces of that, but wasn’t checking in consistently enough to put it all together. The refugee EO spamming was pretty disgusting, and actually one reason I haven’t been spending much time here recently.

                That’s a damn shame about the guys that left. The ones you listed are were some of my favorite commenters.

                1. I think Shikha’s tweet trying to shift some of the blame for the Berkeley riot onto Milo was a factor for some.

                  I’m sticking around, though.

              2. I just realized you might have no idea what’s going on with sloopy’s mom. Here’s the biased media report on it, sloopy had the full story but obviously he’s not around to tell it anymore.

          1. Ah, that explains it, he’s busy watching old Arthur episodes meditating on them in his deep meme trance.

  21. M. Night has a hit? How’s that for a twist ending?

  22. Cartoonist Ted Rall writes – “Is it really so unreasonable for American workers to expect the leftists who claim to care about them, to fight for them to earn higher wages? A left unable to appeal to nationalism has no future.”

    1. Ted Rall, during the Bush Years, was the apex of “screaming leftist idiocy”

      basically, he’s part of the reason leftists have gotten so comfortable spitting on anyone outside NY & CA. He wrote a book called @*#!*(&@( “The Anti-American Manifesto

      the blurb @ Amazon =

      ….The cartoonist describes the problems confronting America today as if they were the four horsemen of the apocalypse ?wars, financial crises, unemployment, and oil (spills) ? and revolution, even a violent one, is the only way. Rall acknowledges the chaos that typically ensues after the collapse or overthrow of an empire, saying that whatever follows will likely, for a time, be worse: “The Terror followed the French Revolution. Stalin’s purges followed the Russian Revolution.” When it comes to what follows, Rall, like many revolutionaries, has less to say: “We must take the chance.” His revolutionary rants and belief in a green, egalitarian world are compelling, yet a stubborn truth remains: most Americans don’t want to revolt, a fact about which Rall seems oblivious, making his Manifesto inadvertently ridiculous. While the cartoonist is right about much of what is wrong with America today, it’s hard to take this seriously.

      Suddenly this guy has decided that “Real America?” should be reformed rather than swept aside? best of luck with that.

      1. Ted Rall is painful to read. Political Cartoonists, other than The Onion’s Kelly, are just bad in general.

        1. What would you say about Scott Adams? (Technically not a political cartoonist mostly)

          1. Adams is hilarious. Reading him on Trump has been very enlightening.

          2. I like Dilbert. I wasn’t very familiar with him, but after the election I saw someone make a reference to him and Trump. So I went and read the last year or so of his blog. It was interesting. I am not actually quite sold on his viewpoint, but I believe it was an interesting analysis. Though he has a very detached writing style. I read his writing in John Carmack’s robot voice.

      2. Yeah, three of his four examples of “honorable left-wing nationalism” in this column are Mao, Fidel Castro, and Ho Chi Minh. So Rall hasn’t given up on leftist idiocy.

        1. I don’t read him regularly, but every now and then he seems to stumble into some truth, but he quickly returns to lefty derp.

          1. Who’s stupider? Ted Rall or Mark Morford?

            1. Morford is worse. I don’t read him any more, but I never came across an ounce of insight or original thinking.

  23. At the end of the article we find out that taxpayers aren’t actually funding these movies, but instead they’re funded by hyper-intelligent alien ghosts from the future.

    1. Umm…. spoiler alert?

    1. That excerpt (its not clear what its from? is it her, or is she quoting someone?) … is some ridiculously illogical horseshit.

      Its saying, “ARRRGGH! Trump (MIGHT) do awful things! Conservatives shouldn’t complain about “Free Speech” because there are bigger problems in the world!”

      “Ignore our violent attempts to silence you! you are culpable because you’re not fighting the fights we want you to fight!”

      it doesn’t even make sense from a chicken-egg standpoint. the can’t even criticize anything the so-called ‘conservatives’ argue for since they don’t even allow them to speak.

      Its effectively saying, “unless you’re the cure (us) you’re the problem (for NOT fighting trump)” – ergo, it doesn’t matter what conservatives do/don’t do = they are justifiable targets.

      I don’t even know if we should give her credit for something that stupid. i’m more curious who actually wrote it.

      1. * unless her idea of twitter-fu is “Type long paragraph, take picture, post” to evade the 140 character limit . which i’m guessing it is.

        That actually makes the whole thing worse because she went to effort to actually transmit something that inane.

        1. Whoever wrote it can’t even spell Berkeley correctly. And, the phrase “violence is never cool so Berkley” doesn’t show any Google results. So, you’re probably correct that she wrote it and took a snapshot.

          1. Oh, and I see our Mary replied to the tweet.

      2. What’s more stupid, shika or the fact reason won’t send her packing for openly mitigating violence. I guess the NAP means shit around here. I thought we still held on to that in theory at reason.

        1. openly mitigating

          I assume you meant “excusing/rationalizing/advocating” or something like that.

          1. Yes rationalizing, for some reason that word was escaping my mind when i wrote my comment

            1. love how your handle changed in the intervening moment

              its like a chameleon changing color

    2. Shrink press freedoms? Also, let’s say everything is as bad as they think. Now everything you do has to be in opposition to the administration or you’re inviting violence onto yourself? That definitely sounds like a free and just world. If the Reason Foundation, the non-profit that publishes this magazine, was ever about promoting libertarian ideals and freedom they need to send her her walking papers.

    3. Oh dear lord, Mary Stack responded to Shikha.

      1. They’re like BFF now.

      2. They may as well hire Stack, he’s gonna be half the commenters soon enough.

    4. I don’t see how any of the things Shikha is afraid of, whether they are legitimate or not, can be fought *without* free speech.

    5. I always thought Shikha was a little off but not that objectionable. About a year ago I changed my mind.

  24. FUCKIN PA POLS STEALING R HARD EARNED MONEY NEED TO BE FED FEET FIRST INTO WOODCHIPPERS.

    1. They need to take a page from Budd Dwyer.

  25. I like that the small picture for this article from the main page, is just a Y-axis flipped version of the picture in the article.

    So I see M. Night looking left, and when I click, he’s looking right. Spooky as hell.

  26. I like that the small picture for this article from the main page, is just a Y-axis flipped version of the picture in the article.

    So I see M. Night looking left, and when I click, he’s looking right. Spooky as hell.

    1. squirrels agree.

    1. the bargain of the century, at only $100m per plane.. (*avionics not included)

      1. Look, is a boondoggle defense contract not the purest form of freedom? Why do you hate freedom Gilmore?

      2. Look, is a boondoggle defense contract not the purest form of freedom? Why do you hate freedom Gilmore?

    2. Why do the Marine corp and the Navy have their own jets? I understand maybe the Navy, since you probably can’t get AF guys to hang out on a ship for long deployments, but why are Marine and Navy pilots separate? Aren’t the Marines part of the Navy?

      1. Why do the Marine corp and the Navy have their own jets?

        The Navy version is designed to operate on aircraft carriers, and the Marine version is designed to take off and land vertically. The Marines like to have their own jets so that they do not need the other service branches.

      2. The missions are different. Traditionally the USMC has cultivated a rifle centric organization, which means Marine Aviation has always understood that their primary job is the support of the Marine rifleman in the assault. Naval Aviation is much more concerned with fleet defense, tactical and strategic strike, maritime patrol and ASW, and other functions. Just like how the Air Force has always treated the A10 like a bastard child, even though it’s by far the most useful plane in the inventory for the wars we’ve been fighting for the last decade and a half.

        The reason the Marines jealously guard their aviation assets is that they know that giving them up means that CAS of Marines would be on the bottom of the Naval Aviation priority list.

        1. “Just like how the Air Force has always treated the A10 like a bastard child, even though it’s by far the most useful plane in the inventory for the wars we’ve been fighting for the last decade and a half.”

          Pete Quesada approves this message. As do dogfaces everywhere.

        2. Just like how the Air Force has always treated the A10 like a bastard child, even though it’s by far the most useful plane in the inventory for the wars we’ve been fighting for the last decade and a half.

          Um…no.

          Q: Which aircraft dropped 60+% of the precision munitions (mostly CAS) in Iraq and Afghanistan while flying only 30% of the total sorties?

          A: The B-1

          The A-10’s well deserved reputation for being an exceptional CAS platform has been overcome by technology. Precision munitions have changed the paradigm of Close Air Support. The A-10 is slow, underpowered, unsurvivable, under-armed, under-fueled and a sustainment nightmare (due to its age).

          There was a time when your data was accurate, but it is simply no longer the case.

          1. I’m not quite as sanguine that “we dropped a ton of JDAMs!” translates to “we provided good CAS”, but I will of course defer to your expertise on the subject. Still, I think the grunts would rather have modernized or new built A10s over the F35.

            I do think that CAS in the future, particularly when we’re talking about low intensity conflict, is more efficiently done with unmanned systems.

            1. Good CAS is the CAS that saves the guy on the ground.

              If you need the gun, there is nothing more impressive than the Hog. The thing is, you just don’t need the gun very often. Friend of a friend, who dropped a shit-ton of bombs from the A-10 said he used the gun once (less than a 1 second burst) in three deployments (obviously just a single data point). So even the Hogs aren’t using the gun very often.

              The Bone, on the other hand, can get to the TIC in about 1/4 of the time, has four dudes to reassign weapons and checks in with 24 PGMs and 5 hours of playtime.

              You know what CAS the guy getting shot at wants? The kind that gets there and drops the bomb on the bad guy first.

              The F-35 has several of those advantages. It can get there fast and the sensors/avionics allow the pilot to employ ordnance faster than a Hog could. And it’s significantly more survivable.

              1. Yeah but I don’t know if I see the F35 has worth the cost. You could have a whole armada of different UAVs for what the F35 costs. I also think that more and more the politics of taking casualties is going to preclude using manned systems in high threat environments, which leaves highly trained pilots in incredibly expensive airplanes circling at angels 30 dropping JDAMs on a convoy of Hilux pickup tricks with GPMGs bungee corded to the roof. It just doesn’t make sense to me.

                I just really don’t buy that we need 2500 stealth fighter/bombers for the conflicts which are likely to take place in the near future. We have 180 F22s operational, the Chinese have what, a squadron of J20s? The Russians last I recalled don’t have an operational 5th gen fighter.

                1. I agree that the next generation will be (rightfully) unmanned. But the technology wasn’t ready in time for gen 5.

                  I just really don’t buy that we need 2500 stealth fighter/bombers for the conflicts which are likely to take place in the near future.

                  You gotta remember that you aren’t building aircraft to defeat current threats. You’re building aircraft to defeat threats 30 years into the future, as it takes about 30 years to field a new system. AND…A-A threats are only a small portion of the total. The surface to air threat is even more formidable and those systems are very prolific.

                  The first T-50s are supposed to be delivered this year. WHich is right where you want them…10 years behind us.

                  1. Why do a lot of stealthy fighters have what look like exposed engine parts like that? It makes no sense to me. Shouldn’t those parts be shrouded in some way?

                    1. Why do a lot of stealthy fighters have what look like exposed engine parts like that?

                      Because they are not stealthy from all aspects. For example the T-50 is not stealthy from behind. The Chinese are assuming once the payload is delivered you don’t need stealth anymore.

                      It saves money not to be stealthy from all aspects.

                    2. But it looks like the engines would also make it non-stealthy from the top and bottom as well.

                    3. Looking at the Wikipedia pictures the T-50 probably has decent stealth characteristics from the bottom and slightly worse from the top. The turkey feathers on the engine hurts from both aspects but there are things you can do which will minimize that.

                      Of course a lot of things that impact stealth you really can’t see from distant photographs. You really need to get up close and also know what materials are being used.

      3. “But, doesn’t that seem like an absurd waste of money?”

        No, says the jobs program commonly referred to as the military – industrial complex. They don’t even wear the same uniform. Read about that sometime.

        1. I just assumed it was too difficult to storm beaches in those wide pants.

      4. “Aren’t Marines part of the Navy?”

        Don’t ever say that to a Marine.

    3. Oh, God… The F-35 again. I’ve posted this before as just one example of the many ways that thing is a clusterfuck.

      The problem with the F-35 (and really with most military development contracts in general) is that, by the time it was obvious the project should have been shitcanned, the sunk costs were way too high for anyone to admit the mistake. So they just kept throwing money at it, hoping it would all work out ok.

      The F-22 is, by all accounts, a better aircraft. I really don’t understand why they couldn’t just tweak a few things and launch it from a catapult (although I’m ignorant as to the engineering challenges there).

      It would almost certainly have been cheaper just to design and develop three separate aircraft for the three branches that actually do the individual jobs well rather than fit a bunch of different systems on the same basic platform. I think it was ultimately just too cool of a concept for the military brass to walk away from.

      1. really don’t understand why they couldn’t just tweak a few things and launch it from a catapult

        i’m not 100% sure, but what i heard was “too heavy, can’t slow down enough”

        1. Ah. That makes sense, thanks.

        2. For clarity to others, i wasn’t talking about why it can’t be *launched*, but rather why it can’t then land on a carrier. Its landing speeds are way too fast, needs long runway.

        3. I don’t know about too heavy, they can land some pretty heavy aircraft on an aircraft carrier. And I’m betting speed probably isn’t really an issue either.

          The real problem is the F-22 wasn’t built to take off or land to take-off on an aircraft carrier. The structure would need to be completely redesigned to handle the catapult and wire-arresting system. The landing gear would need to be beefed up too since you don’t really “land” an aircraft on an aircraft carrier.

          1. The Navy funded $165 million in R&D in the early 1990s to investigate development of a navalized F-22, but the project never went beyond the research phase.

            The biggest problem is that the F-22’s landing speed is too high for landing on aircraft carriers, and solving this would pretty much require turning it into a swing-wing fighter. Doing that and keeping the F-22’s stealthy characteristics wasn’t considered reasonable or affordable, as you’d wind up designing basically an entirely new aircraft.

            1. When I was talking about landing speed I was talking about an unmodified F-22. I’m betting an unmodified F-22 can land at a weight and speed an aircraft carrier can handle. However, that aircraft would probably (unless a miracle occurs) never fly again as it would probably break (i’m talking about major structure — like the wing, not an avionics box). You add structure (weight) to handle a carrier landing and take-off, and you don’t change anything else, the landing speed goes up and the carrier probably can’t handle the combination. You then need to modify other things and the weight goes up again.

              Some of the comments in that article do a good job of describing what I’m talking about.

      2. The lure of the “joint” system has always been very high. The idea is that you can save money by making a modular system. Which works really well for simple things. MREs, small arms, NVGs, etc. there’s not much need for specialized versions between services.

        Doesn’t work for aircraft, but it sells well as fiscal responsibility…..except that in the long run, it’s not responsible at all.

        The F-35 should have been an advanced F16 type plane: simple, rugged, highly customizable and modular. Two engines for the navy’s needs, but that kind of design philosophy. Because one thing that is actually true is that with the advances in avionics, you could fill a carrier up with planes that can shift from fleet defense, to air superiority, to EW, to SEAD, to drone tenders, to maritime strike, and to any of the other missions they may come up. Have lots of room and power for different sensor pods and hardpoints for different weapons.

        1. Want to know about an aircraft? Ask the man who drives one.

          One of my best friends (retired pilot) works very closely with the various fighter squadrons at Hill. The F-35 pilots are a mixed lot of guys who flew the A-10, F-16, F-15 and even the F-22. When you ask the former Hog drivers which aircraft they’d rather perform CAS with they will tell you it’s not even close.

          In A-A engagements, the legacy fighters simply cannot touch it. They recently had an exercise where the F-35 went up against full up legacy platforms in A-A to include the F-15/16/18. They ran over 40 engagements. Not only did the F-35 win every engagement, but the legacy platforms never got a shot off.

          He’s talked to the F-16 pilots who’ve flown against them regularly. They say they are target practice for the F-35. He asked if they ever win and was told every once in a blue moon when you have a Weapon School grad go up against a brand new F-35 guy and the F-35 guy fucks up, the Viper will score a kill.

          Former F-22 drivers will tell you that between the 22/35 each has some advantages over the other and the outcome can go either way.

          Maintenance wise, it’s holding a mission capable rate of over 90%. For comparison, legacy fighters were low 80s and the B-1 was in the upper 60s/low 70s at its best.

          All will tell you it’s got problems. Like any new system, it’s not perfect and fixes are in the works. But from what I’ve heard (albeit second hand) the jet is kicking ass and taking names.

          1. I always like people comparing mission capable rates for systems under development with legacy systems. Even if the new system didn’t have anything broken, they will sometimes do extra maintenance just to be careful or possibly look at something. It is an easy number to calculate and easy to misinterpret.

            1. They aren’t under development. The 34th at Hill is an operational squadron (since August).

              1. I was talking more broadly than the F-35 at present. I remember people talking about how bad the F-35 was for maintenance a couple of years ago. For the record the mission capable rate will probably get a little better as the F-35 gets more time on it.

              2. I was talking more broadly than the F-35 at present. I remember people talking about how bad the F-35 was for maintenance a couple of years ago. For the record the mission capable rate will probably get a little better as the F-35 gets more time on it.

  27. Today in “Strange Records” (so far) =

    1- Black-power transgender butterfly-dominatrix? A lot of record-covers are some weird childish fantasies, but this is just creepy on a number of levels.

    2 – You thought “Girly Ghostbusters” was bad?

    Try “1960s women’s liberation rock bands” playing classic soul tunes but replacing the lyrics with violent revolutionary fantasies?

    Its actually kind of hilarious if you can stomach it. they have exactly as little rhythm as you’d expect. Its like watching someone trying to dance on stilts.

    3 – “things that sound convenient which you probably don’t need

    1. Try “1960s women’s liberation rock bands” playing classic soul tunes but replacing the lyrics with violent revolutionary fantasies?

      Its actually kind of hilarious if you can stomach it.

      Couldn’t

      And I only made it as far as 45 seconds into Eternal Erection

      1. I only made it as far as 45 seconds into Eternal Erection

        Don’t feel bad, it happens to everyone sometimes.

  28. OK, I went out today in search of highbrow literature to read.

    I hope this qualifies.

    If it’s high-quality enough, I’ll recommend it to you.

    1. That’s quite a blurb from the New York Journal of Books.

      1. I know, right? I imagine it’s pretty much like the New York *Review* of books, only more sophisticated.

        /sarc

      2. Screw the NY Journal of Books. Here’s the money-review:

        “A magnificent, flawless, delightful mashup of historical fiction and gothic horror.” ?Wil Wheaton

  29. Many states offer subsidies for film and TV production. The productions follow the credits. Many were in Louisiana a couple years ago. Now they’re in Atlanta. But lots of states have this, often up to 20 or 25% of the budget. Usually the highest credit available is dependent upon using local crew.

    And of course, movies never make money on the books, even if they make hundreds of millions in profits. So none of that profit gets taxed. Which by extension screws people who work on the movie, like the writer, when they’re stipulated 5% or however much of the “net profits” in their contract because there are officially no profits.

    Hollywood is a highly hypocritical place.

  30. If any of the subsidies are used to pay for anything in which Shia LaBeouf appears, those who approved them need to be drawn and quartered.

  31. Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf agreed to expand the state’s tax credit program to $65 million annually.

    Talk about a bonfire of the tax dollars.

  32. An intelligent take on not banning refugees by she who must not be named.

    1. If America breaks a country, many hawks believe it has to stay (endlessly) in order to “fix it” somehow, with more troops, and more bombing campaigns ? then building the nation back up. The correct response to making refugees, however, is to let them emigrate to your country as recourse.

      I don’t think this is actually either “correct” or “intelligent”, or that the US is solely responsible for “breaking” Syria or other countries we happen to also occasionally bomb (e.g. somalia, yemen).

      Terrorist attacks are not outside the realm of possibility, though they remain a rare risk compared to heart disease, cancer, and slipping in your bathtub.

      I personally think this “appeal to statistics” is an intellectually-lazy and besides-the-point approach to the issue of terrorism or ‘how to limit risk’

      Its implicitly conceding that people we may be giving sanctuary to may want to also do us harm. “Sorry! still a moral prerogative! Why? Uh, because Heart Disease.” Its not really that clever or compelling at all. Is heart disease *avoidable* with some minor compromises in lifestyle?… the comparison pretends to a calculus that fails on immediate inspection.

      the most recent attacks in San Bernardino, CA and the Pulse nightclub in Florida were not performed by immigrants

      So? the point is that the identified w/ their former homes more than the US.

      1. * not even sure that last point is accurate. The San Berdoo shooter’s wife was a very recent emigre. He was the child of pakistani immigrants.

        Why does some minor change in status mean that we’re forced to pretend that their Nation of Origin has absolutely nothing to do with the causes of terror?

        Unless Americans are ready to ban certain religions, strip citizenship for suspicious behavior, destroy what remains of privacy, and to hand over even more freedom to the imperial security state, there isn’t much that they can do to prevent lone wolf attacks;

        The ridiculous thing here is that you are suggesting any of the things we CAN do are off the table before then declaring there’s “nothing we can do”

        I’ve seen this same argument made over and over again. Its not very smart or compelling at all. Its all so much “get used to it” rhetoric…. combined with what is a very-shaky claim that our moral obligations to refugees requires us to never dare consider whether they present risks or not.

        I think the argument fails on multiple terms. Its neither particularly moral, nor even remotely realist or purely-practical. Yes, i think we should take in refugees where the US bears some responsibility and there are people risking persecution. I don’t think we are obligated to turn a blind eye to risks because of that.

        1. Wouldn’t have to give up what remains of our privacy if we banned the people committing the attacks.

          1. yeah, the whole thing is littered with false choices where everything is =

            “either you take 100% of refugees and apply zero discrimination to their risk profile”
            or
            “you are forced to accept all these compromises to freedom”

            there’s no “can’t we just fuck over SOME of the ‘fugees?” And, you know, ALSO fight against govt surveillance of citizens? Everything is presented as a moral absolute that disallows any sort of finer-detail rationale.

            Which frankly is the same sort of ham-handed thinking that the “hurr durr Build A Wall”-people use.

        2. I personally think this “appeal to statistics” is an intellectually-lazy and besides-the-point approach to the issue of terrorism

          I’ll give you that.

          Yes, i think we should take in refugees where the US bears some responsibility and there are people risking persecution.

          I took this as her basic argument

          1. I took this as her basic argument

            yep, but she jumps from that starting point to saying, “ergo, we need to accept them all and never so much as ‘pause’ intake or apply any discrimination to the process”

            I’m not suggesting what Trump is doing IS improving things at all. I’m just saying she’s pretending that any ad-hoc alterations of refugee policy based on security concerns is some sort of moral-violation.

    2. Let me add =

      i don’t even necessarily disagree with her basic conclusion.

      its that her argument is pretty shit. Besides, we’re not “banning” anyone.

      1. Isn’t her basic conclusion to do what Europe has done? That’s not a winning conclusion IMO, in order to sell people that we must import more middle easterners a case must be made that we will not get the same results as Europe.

        Thus far we have hand waiving and calling people racists, somehow that hasn’t worked.

        1. Isn’t her basic conclusion to do what Europe has done?

          I don’t think that’s a fair comparison.

          One huge difference between the US and Europe is that we CAN control the inflow. They can’t, really.

          Its always been a reason why the US has had a very different attitude about the value of taking in refugees.

          Unlike the “imperial” powers of Europe, the US never had colonies of our own that went to shit. Europe has always had a bit of a guilt trip about some of its former overseas territories being turned into failed-state shitholes. Americans have never had that problem.

          the US is also, geographically, almost like an “Island” state. Other than via Mexico, people can’t just come fleeing here easily. they have to fly or take a trans-atlantic/pacific boat ride. Which usually isn’t even practical for actual refugees.

          Basically, even if the US maximized our refugee intake, we’d still not take in unlimited numbers, or even nearly as many as very-permeable central europe. We take in between 50-100,000 a year from all over the world (half from asia), and minor changes to these numbers are not the difference between “Isolationist-Racist-State” and “Obama’s Open Arms of Charity”, despite what some people seem to want to believe.

          1. So you are you claiming that Europe is seeing an illegal immigration issue, and not a case of inviting them in? It’s curious how they only became incapable of controlling that immigration at the exact time they decided to let them in the country. One might think, the issue was their change in policy, and not the “island” theory you are suggesting.

            If the US decided to maximize its refugee intake they could easily take in the numbers European countries have. Last numbers I’d checked we had taken in close to what France has taken in already, so the impossibility of it doesn’t seem convincing.

            1. the “island” theory you are suggesting.

              Well, a bit more than a theory. There are these things called “oceans” that millions of people would all have to find means to cross.

              Whereas the path from Syria (or from North Africa) to central europe is more of a hop/skip/jump, logistics wise.

              re: Europe – i don’t think you understand what i’m saying. the issue of policy vs. practical reality goes hand in hand.

              could European nations have “barred the door” from the very start? They could maybe have tried, but there wasn’t as much political pushback at the start and even if there were there would have been limitations on what they could do. so instead they (mostly) tried to accommodate the migration. I don’t think it got out of hand until 2015 and by then they had no ability to stop what was over a million people a year coming in from multiple directions.

              even if they’d taken very different policy stances (or do tomorrow), the facts on the ground wouldn’t look very different. they’d still have lots of temporary camps full of homeless people with nowhere to go, and governments unsure whether to accept some/boot others, or try to send them elsewhere.

              in short, policy is mostly just adaptation within the bounds of what’s possible. I suppose you could argue that its theoretically possible for europe to shift gears and kick a million refugees back out, but i don’t think there’s the political will for it.

              1. The island theory I’m talking about is your contention that the number of refugees is a matter of geography and not policy. I see nothing that justifies that assertion.

                It’s not necessary to discuss what they would be like if they kicked the refugees out. We are discussing letting them in. We know the results in Europe, why should we do the same in the US?

                I’ve seen nothin compelling by the advocates for why the US would be different. You suggested geography means it’s inevitable. Nothing backs that up, Europe let them in voluntarily. I’m not looking to do the same, neither are most people. I’ve simply pointed out that a reason why same people won’t equate to same results requires evidence.

            2. Last numbers I’d checked we had taken in close to what France has taken in already

              here’s all the data on every sort of refugee the US takes in. an average of ~68,000 a year during the obama admin. about half those are from the ME.

              those are the people we actually let in, not the total applying.

              Apathiest noted the other day that there’s no simple comparison between US acceptances and EU ones because they are entirely different conditions (keeping with my point above)

              meaning = refugees to the US apply for refugee status while still in their home country, and only come when they’re approved.

              The ones in Europe, by contrast, just “show up”, and whether they are accepted or not they’re still there. Hence the camps.

              Over a million refugees arrived in Europe in 2015, and close to that in 2016. The numbers for who was “accepted” by which country vary wildly, but i don’t think those numbers compare favorably to the actual number of ‘asylum seekers’ present on the ground

              1. We’re the people shooting up paris, raping in England, or driving over Germans in camps?

                If not I don’t see your point. They let people in that were predictably dangerous. Why do the same?

                Saying it’s impossible, when the argument from some is we should follow suit in terms of allowing people in doesn’t make a hell of a lot of sense.

                1. when the argument from some is …

                  From who exactly? Not from anyone I’ve read and definitely not anyone in a position to make such a decision. Gilmore is saying Europe doesn’t really have a choice in the way we don’t get to decide on every Mexican who comes across the border. People across an ocean are another story. We might not have a perfect system, and by all means we need to improve it, but we have been at least somewhat discriminatory and definitely haven’t let in as many single, military aged males as European countries. No one serious is saying we should let everyone in. Maybe some hippie idiot on the street, but they’re not worth debating.

                  1. When you don’t want to limit immigration, you do want them to immigrate.

                    I get Gilmore’s argument. It’s just that it’s wrong. Immigration happened when they let it happen, not because of geography which has remained the same for a thousand years. Did Europe change its location, or did policy change?

      2. I get her argument as well, and to a point agree we have a responsibility. The thing that gets me, is most, “refugees” are not applying for that status from the place they became refugees of. For instance, the famous picture of the kid drowned on the beach in Greece (I think?) were Syrians fleeing Turkey where they had been living and working for a year but the old man wanted some dental work and that is free in Europe.

        The sheer number of utter shit holes on this planet where people want to leave is mind boggling. To bring everyone who wants to come to the US is not possible, and would turn us into a third world shit hole ourselves. And that is not even getting into the security risks. Agreed, the comparisons of terror attacks to heart disease or lightning strikes is silly. The same argument could be made about mass shootings and firearms regulation, but we seem to have no problem regulating firearms to extreme.

        Maybe as Razorfist was getting at in your link yesterday concerning Mexico, people would sort their own countries out if they were not on a mission to go somewhere else. It won’t be easy, but nothing will change if they don’t, and the US will have troops and wars spread all over the globe forever. At some point the US has to say fuck it, and walk away. But I might just be a cold hearted asshole.

    3. As a terrible-writer-American I speak from lived experience when I saw that’s fucking godawful writing.

    4. “An intelligent take on not banning refugees by she who must not be named.”

      It’s refreshing just to see an argument for it that isn’t about banning refugees from those countries necessarily being wrong because it’s insane, stupid, or pro-Trump.

      Hell, it’s refreshing to see someone argue against it on the merits and not whether this is something President should be allowed to do.

      How come anti-war.com got Steigerwald, and we ended up with Robby, ENB, and Dalmia?

      I’d trade any one or all three of them for Lucy.

  33. While cruising through shikha’s feed, I found this gem she retweeted

    Kizone Kaprow ?@Kizone_Kaprow
    @TheTelex @shikhadalmia Try to focus. “Fear” of finding a new medical plan vs. fear of living the rest of your life in a horrendous camp.

    Um… Can we talk about perspective, people actually are having financial burdens due to Obamacare, but that shit doesn’t matter because the left has hyperventilated into existence this specter that Trump will start putting people into camps. Geez these people need to take their heads out of their asses and go for a hike to clear their minds.

    1. While cruising through shikha’s feed

      that sounds disgusting

    2. Dalmia reflexively embracing the screams of a mentally ill person because it confirms her equally asinine bias probably explains a lot of her research methodology.

    3. **blinks**

      WAIT A SECOND

      SHE RETWEETED OUR MOST INFAMOUS TROLL

      I CAN’T EVEN

      1. For reals? I’m fairly new here, (Lurked only a short bit). Who was it?

        1. Oh, its a very long story.

          shortest version =

          – crazy woman tries posting here couple years back. like other crazy people (see: Hihn), translates all the snark here as inherently hostile, starts aggressively “shitposting” (before that was even a common term), literally posting 100 of the same comment repeatedly just to clog up discussions, having long arguments with herself, changing handles… eventually getting into personal tiffs with some others, at which point someone doxxes someone else, and the gloves come off….

          and that’s why we now have registration in the comments.

          and just when you thought crazy woman was banned, never to return, she still spends every minute of her waking life engaged in a hate-filled-vendetta against the magazine

          yeah, don’t even ask. its so dumb.

          1. UNHINGED LIBERTARIAN ATTACKS REF AT HIGH SCHOOL BASKETBALL GAME, ARRESTED FOR DISORDERLY CONDUCT

            With a reference to Sloopy’s Mom’s story and her fucking picture?! What a sick weirdo freak.

            Note: Shikha is retweeting this person.

          2. Did anyone ever figure out if Mary was the gamboler?

            1. Mary was not White Indian.

              WI had a distinct website, with his writings and reviews and philosophies. He was a fat, white kid from western pennsylvania. Come to think of it, the whole character was probably made up by Tulpa. He’s that deranged.

            2. Mary was not White Indian.

              WI had a distinct website, with his writings and reviews and philosophies. He was a fat, white kid from western pennsylvania. Come to think of it, the whole character was probably made up by Tulpa. He’s that deranged.

              1. So you’re sure whoever made the website also did the White Indian spamming?

                1. Jason God*esky had trolled–and been banned from–dozens of other blogs under the White Indian moniker. He’s his own brand of lunacy.

                  1. thanks

          3. So Kizone Kaprow is Mary?

            1. Yes. Mary Stack of Ft Worth, Texas.

    4. People actually lost their medical plans. Nobody is actually put in camps, or even threatened to be, or even suggesting they be. Are we expected to justify violence from totally irrational claims by crazy people?

      You could just as well say fear of getting blown up by terrorists> greater concern then fear of camps therefore the right can go burn the streets down.

      Also, Shaka has never been remotely libertarian, so no surprise.

        1. Shaka, when the walls fell.

      1. “Also, Shaka has never been remotely libertarian, so no surprise.”

        Her writing about Detroit was excellent.

        Didn’t she used to write for the Detroit Free Press?

        There’s a city that never had to worry about immigration–legal or otherwise.

        Emigration, on the other hand, . . .

        1. To be fair, the metro area has all those Arabs in Dearborn.

        2. They actually have if you go back to who populates Detroit.

    5. It should be clear to everybody by now that there isn’t anything Dalmia wouldn’t throw under the bus to save immigration.

    6. “… the left has hyperventilated into existence this specter that Trump will start putting people into camps.”

      It’s just a collective guilty conscience at work; they struggle with the knowledge that the only US president to actually put people in concentration camps was FDR, a canonized saint in the Democrat religion.

  34. ‘I see taxpayers subsidizing me and they don’t even know they are subsidizing me.’

  35. Hey matte object

    Can you better explain your walmart buys 90c on dollar? Why would that be a good deal for film studio? I get why for walmart but not aure why film gives up 3 million on production

    1. I’m like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie…

      The film studio has more tax credits than liabilities, so they sell off the excess.

      1. Ah thanks. And is the liabilities the expenses in this case?

        1. Tax liabilities.

          1. Thanks but i am still not seeing the benefit to them. The tax credits from what i learned above equates to really tax payers funding the production. So why would they sell them off and not use that extra 3 million?

            1. Where does 3 million figure comes from?

              The tax credits can only be applied to a tax bill. When they’re done shooting and back in California they won’t owe any more taxes. So they sell the excess credit to companies who will owe taxes in that state.

  36. Anyone wishing to contact me may now do so at my new email address:

    tonio4liberty@protonmail.com

    Jesse and Groovus can verify that this is the real me.

    1. But how do we know Jesse and Groovus are real? Hmmmm?

  37. Apologies if someone already covered this:

    Dalmia doubled down on her Berkley derp a few hours ago.

    It’s looking like my link may not work for some reason. If not, you can all copy/paste this:
    pic.twitter.com/ffku2ZeAGa

      1. Well shit. Not sure how I missed that…or how I screwed up my link.

  38. So, apparently, my city is having another anti-Trump march tonight. This is getting tedious.

    1. Mine as well. They didn’t march right outside of my apartment, like they usually do, but went down the street on the other side of the building. They’re still chanting ‘love trumps hate’ and that dumbass ‘hey hey ho ho donald trump has got to go.’

      Dear fellow youngsters: Jesus Christ, please come up with some slogans and chants that haven’t been recycled since Vietnam.

      1. Chant! Chant! We shall chant! We shall chant until we can’t!

          1. I had never seen that. Excellent, especially the closing bit with the reporter.

      2. The love trumps hate is ironic to me since they are the ones that hate people who dont go with what they want

        1. Something I’m pretty sure I read here: “love trumping hate” seems to involve a surprising amount of vandalism and assault.

    1. Trump’s statements about Muslims and proposal of what he called “Muslim ban” during his campaign, combined with his remarks about Mexican immigrants, inspired a wide consensus that it was fair to call him a racist.

      Oh boy.

      This article never really explains why Islamophobia=racism. There are a couple of random strawmen that still don’t make the point. And, as always, I find leftist writers difficult to read. Maybe my brain just can’t process it, but the writing just seems really, really bad to me.

    2. Hammer/nail

    3. “It makes sense,” as in, “isn’t it awfully convenient if we did.”

    4. You’re not going to make them actually think about their opponents ad why they hate them, are you?

  39. Everyday Feminism or Everyday Insanity?

    I may have to remind myself over and over again that having a period doesn’t make me female any more than having nipples makes someone a mother, but someday I’ll overcome my conditioned ideas of sex and gender and be able to fully accept that men can have periods.

    My body is not female. My menstruation is not female. It just is. My body just is.

    ***

    My body is its own thing. It does what it does, and that’s fine. Getting my period is painful and bloody and messy and annoying, but it doesn’t have to make me feel like less of a guy.

    The amount of pain I hear from trans men related to their periods is substantial. But by talking about it and degendering it, we can lessen the pain.

    Menstruating doesn’t have to be a girl thing.

    1. Hopefully someone out there has a database where these people are being compiled into a never, ever hire list.

    2. I feel like I’m a fairly tolerant guy. But there comes a point where I hit my limit. You know where I hit my limit? Right about when someone who cannot physiologically have a period calls in sick over their period. I mean, you get so many sick days, but… you know it’s not that simple.

      1. I think they mean the opposite, that people who are physiologically getting their period can be men. In their hearts.

    3. AMENDMENT XXVIII

      The posting of links to “EverydayFeminism.com” to Reason Hit & Run shall be punishable by death.

      1. This are my links, Mr Bluster. Do you see?

        I am the Derp Dragon.

    4. any more than having nipples makes someone a mother

      I’m reminded of the Seinfeld episode where Elaine’s nipple is showing on her Christmas card, and Jerry and Kramer pull up their shirts to show that, yes, they have nipples too.

    5. but someday I’ll overcome my conditioned ideas of sex and gender and be able to fully accept that men can have periods

      The hell you say. I have not been cutting checks for my annual membership in the patriarchy club to put up with that business.

    6. There are many other articles by Wiley Reading for you to enjoy. Will you read them all and let us know what is in them? Thanks in advance.

  40. Hmm- yeah, I was invited to all the Western Mass (read Berkshire) film commission meetings and… they turned out to be mostly meetings about tax preferences.

  41. Hmm- yeah, I was invited to all the Western Mass (read Berkshire) film commission meetings and… they turned out to be mostly meetings about tax preferences.

    1. It was actually pretty funny- they had some outrageous meetings around that stuff.

      1. Any movies we know filmed in Berkshire?

        Tootsie did some shooting in the Hurley Mountain Inn, not too far from where I live.

  42. In a surprise twist it turns out that M. Night Shyamalan and Uwe Boll…. are the same person!

    1. I see bad movies…they’re everywhere. They don’t even know that they suck.

    2. At least M. Night Shalamaladingdong tried to make decent movies, even if he rarely succeeded. Boll took his film credits and didn’t give a shit after that.

  43. Kleptomania and a mother’s love: The five-finger discount is my personal rebellion against inequality
    The first thing I shoplifted was an avocado, when I couldn’t afford to feed my toddler the most nutritious food

    At T.J. Maxx I pay for the board book for my daughter, but I smuggle out a scented candle and a packet of detoxifying facial cleansing wipes. Self-care for the revolution. I prepare a reasonable excuse should anyone point out my unpaid items ? always, I plan to use my daughter in my defense. I’ve earned this right. I was in labor for 46 hours. I don’t feel guilt. It’s all true. The distracted nature of motherhood, the never-ending worry, and the constant efforts to ward off an unexpected toddler meltdown. I need these two small objects of peace!

    I owe no one here anything, but the world of consumerism owes me my life. And besides, it isn’t stealing if you also buy something.

    If she isn’t getting paid by Trump to write this stuff, she should be.

    1. I found someone with the same name as the author, but for legal reasons I will clarify that I don’t know if she’s the same person

      “Just Buffalo teaching artist AMANDA MONTEI is the editor of the literary journal P-QUEUE, and co-edits Bon Aire Projects with Jon Rutzmoser. Her poetry and fiction has appeared in The Atlas Review, Pinwheel, Joyland, Explosion Proof Magazine, Delirious Hem, and others. Her critical writing has appeared in American Book Review, HTMLGIANT, Performing Ethos, Harriet: The Blog, and Ms. Magazine. She is the author of the poetry chapbook The Failure Age (Bloof Books, 2014) and co-author of Dinner Poems (Bon Aire Projects, 2013). She is currently a PhD student in the English department at the University at Buffalo. Her full-length book Two Memoirs is forthcoming from Jaded Ibis this year.”

      1. Just Buffalo

        For the last time, we have no yaks, zebus or god damn aurochs!

        1. Oh, sorry, I guess I was thinking of bison.

      2. Boy, those are some pretty major publishers for her books. Instant credibility!

    2. Hopefully someone out there has a database where these people are being compiled into a never, ever hire list.

    3. As an aside, I dispute the popular view that healthy food is expensive.

      Collard greens are $0.69 for a big bundle that will easily be a side dish for two people. Chickens are about $6, and you can get enough meat for four individual meals plus the broth you can make from the carcass. Bread is dirt cheap if you buy flour and make it yourself. Lentil curry and brown rice can feed an army for very little money. Canned tuna is one of the cheapest sources of protein. Frozen vegetables are usually a dollar – sometimes less.

      I think it’s just a lack of culinary skill. People want healthy food that is as convenient as McDonalds, and that’s just not economically possible without a high price tag.

      1. You are absolutely correct. Go to a produce store some day and check — you can usually fill up an entire shopping cart for under $20. The only problem is being able to eat it all in time.

    4. omg a narcissist at Salon? say it isn’t so!

      (46 hours of labor? Bitch, please.)

      1. “This is just too degrading and disgusting.”

        /professional dominatrix

  44. So, Robby’s tirade about McInnes and his horrible opinions inspired me to actually look the guy up (I’d heard of him before).

    He’s… maybe a little abrasive at times? And he’s a definite Trumper. But…

    Overall, I don’t mind him. He generally says things that ring true. He’s actually like a straight, less aggressive and more serious Milo. He’s a very good entertainer, I’d say. I think someone mentioned that they would label him as a paleo-conservative, and I’d probably agree with that. He’s very hard on Muslims, but it’s mainly from a “why is the left so obsessed with these people” perspective. He’s also got some mild ‘red pill’ in him, but he backs it up.

    TL;DR, the dude is mildly provocative (he’s what I think of when I think of the mainstream alt-right) but if you think he’s a Nazi (or even really worth denouncing), I’d like to see some sources that I’m not familiar with.

    1. How many times has McInnes been on Kennedy’s show?

      How many times has *Robby Soave* been on Kennedy’s show?

      1. I’d actually seen McInnes on Kennedy and just didn’t know who he was until I saw a few of his videos from Rebel Media.

      2. McInnes also used to be on Red Eye all the time. (Maybe still is)

    2. *Mild EDIT: The word ‘tirade’ was perhaps a bit strong. More like completely unnecessary knock against.

    3. Gavin has great hair and a great beard. Your move Robbo.

      1. I don’t understand this. Clearly Robby wins the clean face award, the gentleman’s contest.

      1. People with low IQs designed the chairs on MARTA so some are literally impossible to sit in.

        Can confirm.

        Joking aside, were you serious about ‘literal Nazi’? My sarcasmometer ran out of batteries.

        1. I always read it as a “literary Nazi.” So, Heidegger.

        2. Oh man, I just saw Taylor’s book cover in the side. OF COURSE an alt-right intellectual’s book cover would be of a masturbatory German Romantic 19th century painting.

        3. I was joking, but ‘race realism’ = Nazism is a common sentiment.

      2. In fact, in 20 years, when blacks, Hispanics, and whites are all equally represented in the population, we will be better off. I don’t dislike minorities. I hate white liberals and the good news is, their days are numbered.

        Amen. If the world was free of white liberals, it would be a better place.

      3. He’s literally a literal Nazi.

        And here’s his opener =

        In fact, in 20 years, when blacks, Hispanics, and whites are all equally represented in the population, we will be better off. I don’t dislike minorities. I hate white liberals and the good news is, their days are numbered. The myth of “diversity is our strength” is contingent on nobody trying it. When we’re all forced to live side by side, we’ll quickly realize we are incompatible, and agree to disagree. The blind utopians at the New York Times will be crushed and the rest of us realists will be dancing in the streets.

        yeah, totally sounds White Nationalist to me.

        1. Now I am not sure if you think he is a white national or not. the When we’re all forced to live side by side, we’ll quickly realize we are incompatible, and agree to disagree. threw me a bit. But the rest was pretty tolerable I thought.

          1. He might be what you’d call a ‘race-realist’?* He certainly didn’t have that as a focal point for any of his stuff that I saw.

            As noted above, he’s been on Kennedy and FNC a lot, so I doubt that he’s really all that objectionable on the whole.

            *This would absolutely be considered horrifying to someone like Robby, no questions asked. I find it uncomfortable but not prima facie *disgusting*. The way he approaches it in that article is relatively tame (compared to someone like Derbyshire or Sailer) and really doesn’t show any animus towards anyone IMHO.

            1. really doesn’t show any animus towards anyone IMHO.

              That was my opinion as well.

          2. When we’re all forced to live side by side, we’ll quickly realize we are incompatible, and agree to disagree

            I think this is incredibly optimistic about race relations.

            I mean, imagine if he were talking about liberals and conservatives. You’d think he was nuts!

            1. GIL, I’ve seen you take down ‘race realism’ before and am curious as to your thoughts on the matter.

              Frankly, all I see from the left on that subject is shrieking about thought crimes and it’s hard to gather any evidence against the race realists’ hypotheses.

              If you have some contradictory evidence, I’d love to read through it.

              1. I’ve seen you take down ‘race realism’ before

                ? maybe. i think what i’ve bitched about is the race-obsession of the Vdare crowd

                They’re retarded about it. They seem to think “race” is the single most important issue in western civilization and go to absurd lengths to try and justify why it is/should be. its basically lowbrow nativistic horseshit dressed up as intellectualism. Like their arguments about “average IQs”. which mostly reflect differences in economic development than anything to do with “genetic differences”. (e.g. the differences in average IQs between modern Westerners and 12th century westerners is more significant than the difference between modern Westerners and Africans)

                basically, the ‘scientistic racial determinism’ of the Steve Sailer/VDare set is stupid.

                That has nothing to do with what i think Gavin or Jim Goad talk about, which is more just plain-jane “culture”. e.g. “Poor white people don’t @#%*() SHOOT EACH OTHER as much as poor black folks” That’s not racist, that’s just observable fact.

                It COULD be racist if you claimed they do it because they’re “inherently inferior”, but merely pointing those #s out isn’t.

                I appreciate gavin’s point about race the way “yankees” see it, versus the way southerners see it.

                Southern whites and southern blacks may not love each other, but they often live cheek-to-jowl together and talk the same and eat the same food and generally get along.

                (con’td)

                1. (con’td)

                  (*re: get along= “or sometimes not”)

                  Northern whites and northern blacks often effectively live on separate planets. Northern whites pretend to care deeply about race relations, and northern blacks probably think they’re full of shit, and sometimes they get along and sometimes they don’t.

                  I think what Gavin was saying in that piece was that, sooner or later, the whole US is just going to end up like the south. No one’s going to necessarily love one another in any kumbaya liberal fantasy world, but we’ll all be used to simply getting along and doing the same shit together.

                  Which is my point about “optimism”. The ideal people should strive for is “pluralism and comity”, not “deep appreciation and love”

                  my perspective is mostly from growing up in NYC, where white people were about 40% of the peer groups, and half those (at least in my circles) were jews, and another chunk were guidos. I usually had more in common with the asian and black and hispanic kids than i did with those groups. I just don’t care about race-differences all that much.

                  i don’t necessarily agree with gavin’s notion of ‘incompatibility’, but i understand where he’s coming from – at least in the sense that ‘total cultural integration is neither desirable nor possible’. the problem is that the language people use to talk about race in America is dominated by the retards on the left, so anyone who talks “differently” is instantly labeled an irredeemable racist.

                  1. Well we’re on the same page. When you had referred to the ‘racial realists’ in the past, I imagined you were mainly referring to the hardcore Bell Curve folks (and they form a significant subset of the race-obsessed VDare folks you mention above)… I now understand that you were mainly referring to the cultural side and not necessarily the biological arguments (my request stands for arguments against the Bell Curve people on intellectual grounds from anyone who’s looked into it).

                    The point about white liberals I also read as ‘white NORTHERN liberals’… I’ll agree with your points and have much the same experience. And that’s a reason that I don’t find McInnes to be objectionable. Like you said, he’s talking about a *very likely* future. Anyone who responds to that notion with hysterics and no arguments is a thought-crime-enthusiast, to me.

                    1. (my request stands for arguments against the Bell Curve people on intellectual grounds from anyone who’s looked into it).

                      The only thing I’ve seen that hasn’t to my knowledge been refuted is a PhD dissertation from several years ago. I can find it you’re going to read it. (It’ll probably take several days if you’re not familiar IQ and g.)

                    2. It’ll probably take several days if you’re not familiar IQ and g.

                      I am not directly in that field, but can hold my own. If you have the time to track it down and link it, I’d appreciate it.

                    3. here

                      Wicherts, one of the advisers, is one of the heavy weights in intelligence research and author of this extremely important paper that you should read first.

                    4. arguments against the Bell Curve people

                      Pet peeve: A very small section of the Bell Curve was about race and their conclusion was noncommittal. Actual hereditarian arguments very rarely mention that book.

                2. The modern IQ test was developed in 1904, though. So how you can possibly try to compare modern IQs to the IQs of people from the year 1100 I don’t rightly know. At best, the “known” IQs of people from the 12th century are an educated guess.

                  1. Who are you, who are so wise in the ways of science?

                3. Like their arguments about “average IQs”. which mostly reflect differences in economic development than anything to do with “genetic differences”.

                  Unfortunately, there is plenty of evidence that the genetic differences are real. In an overlapping-bell-curves sort of way: it’s not that all members of Race X and superior/inferior to all members of Race Y. At least much of what I’ve read of “race realism” seems like common sense. E.g., it’s not necessarily a solvable problem that proportionately more Asians get advanced degrees in math, and proportionately fewer blacks. So it’s stupid to devote educational resources to “fixing” that “problem.”

                  1. “average IQs”. which mostly reflect differences in economic development

                    This is a lie.

                    1. This is a lie.

                      So

                      1) you think a “single-year snapshot of SAT scores by race/income” constitutes “proof of a “lie”…

                      2) A “lie” about IQ…. which SATs arent even a test of in the first place?

                      3) and if it were to be a “lie” in the first place… it would require you somehow knowing that i was consciously trying to misrepresent something i know to be otherwise?

                      all you’ve just shown is that your standards of “proof” for things fall through the floor whenever you feel like your silly racial-assumptions are being challenged.

                      Or am i lying?

                    2. single year LOL

                      Full-scale IQ–SAT r is 0.8. Most of the problems with using SAT (e.g. test prep differences) are in blacks’ favor.

                      You were consciously trying to represent yourself as someone who’s studied this issue — lying.

                    3. You were trying to represent yourself as someone who takes data.

                      And that’s the shit you throw to prove a claim? a single year? American high-school students? = the human race
                      Where the variance in income in the set you provided is actually more significant than between races?

                      please go fuck yourself. You’re basically no different than a “Intelligent Design” proponent, gasping at single data points and pretending they’re significant of some important overarching claim. It serves no purpose other than to convince yourself and your fellow-travelers of some preconceived racial-horseshit.

                    4. Where the variance in income in the set you provided is actually more significant than between races?

                      HAHAHAHA you love pretending to understand stuff, don’t you?

                    5. I love this idea you have. I linked the dude to a really good argument against Jensenism. You’re here making shit up, rambling like a crazy person, and rehashing 70’s Marxist propoganda. Yet I’m the guy who needs to prove something.

                    6. my comment above was basically summarizing my impression that Vdare-style scientific-racists are morons who cling tenaciously to whatever scraps of data they can find that might anecdotally reinforce their idiotic racial fetish

                      All you’ve done is substantiate this point.

                    7. Just so we’re clear: the single thing you have to offer is innumerate commie nonsense, yet I’m the one clinging to scraps of data. You’re the one denying that animals in different environments evolve differently, yet I’m the one who’s like a creationist. Do I have this about right?

                    8. innumerate commie nonsense

                      if you didn’t understand what i was referring to, what you should do is ask

                      and no, you don’t have anything “about right” there. thanks.

                    9. The single thing you offered to this conversation was “there’s more genetic variation within races than between them” — innumerate commie nonsense.

                      If I don’t comment for the next couple weeks it’s because I’m still laughing at you thinking Vanhanen was on your side.

                    10. biological anthropologist Jonathan Marks agrees with Edwards that correlations between geographical areas and genetics obviously exist in human populations, but goes on to note that “What is unclear is what this has to do with ‘race’ as that term has been used through much in the twentieth century?the mere fact that we can find groups to be different and can reliably allot people to them is trivial. Again, the point of the theory of race was to discover large clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous between, contrasting groups. Lewontin’s analysis shows that such groups do not exist in the human species, and Edwards’ critique does not contradict that interpretation.”[6]

                      The view that, while geographic clustering of biological traits does exist, this does not lend biological validity to racial groups, was proposed by several evolutionary anthropologists and geneticists prior to the publication of Edwards critique of Lewontin.[7][17][18][19][20]

                      Commie nonsense

                  2. plenty of evidence

                    1 ) there’s more genetic variation within races than between them

                    2 ) even if you showed “genetic differences” between groups [via appeal some bullshit “averages” on tests as functionally useless as “IQ”] it would still amount to dancing about architecture

                    iow = “So what”? you think somehow we should use this shitty-single-data-point approach and base all sorts of *social policies* on them?

                    get the fuck out of here with this noise. I’ve seen this same bullshit approach a million times and its nothing but sprinkling shitty-data as window-dressing for preconceived racial ideas.

                    1. Lewontin’s Fallacy sighting. Haven’t seen that one in a while.

                      functionally useless as “IQ”

                      HAHAHHAHAHAHA holy fucking shit

                1. Also, one thing I really like about his discussion about Africa is that he points out that the end of colonialism had extremely negative effects, but doesn’t go the ‘oh, legacy of evil white colonialism’ route – instead he argues that the greater damage the West caused was by their universities educating Africa’s up-and-coming elites and turning them into Marxists, which in turn slowed their development post-colonization.

                2. That is rather long. Bookmarked for later. Thanks. Those guys baffle me. (racialists) I honestly don’t get it. The majority of people of different races I have been around where not Americans. My experience has been we are all pretty much the same. The problem with race relations in America is not race, it is America and agendas pushed.

                3. This essay in nonsense. He doesn’t seem at all aware of hereditarian arguments.

                  e.g. “I can recognise a “god of the gaps” argument when I see it. IQ scores were the alpha and omega of all self-proclaimed ‘race realists’, right up until it was found that they don’t support a racialist agenda.”

                  He seems to believe that 1) the Flynn effect* was discovered relatively recently and 2) it necessarily has something to say about racial differences. Flynn himself rejects both.

                  * Murray and Hernstein dubbed it “the Flynn effect” because Flynn was stuyding it at the time, and they, not having a background in psychometrics, didn’t know that the phenomenon had been studied for 70 years.

                  1. Well, I skimmed the rest of the essay … the first half is terrible. There’s absolutely nothing redeeming. The second half is political stuff I mostly skipped.

                    1. If you’re going to criticize it, actually address the points argued as above, don’t be lazy and go “oh it’s terrible and I just skipped the rest.”

                    2. If there’s an argument you want me to address, I will. But I’m not going to write a point by point refutation of an essay that I consider mostly ‘not even wrong.’

                    3. And there’s nothing wrong with skipping the half of the essay that’s entirely irrelevant to the topic.

            2. I think this is incredibly optimistic about race relations.

              I don’t know. Actually, I used to enjoy going to Breitbart to just argue with the “we have to live separate” segregationists. I don’t get it, but I come from a place where we are all either white trash or mexican heritage. Seems I possess some super power of privilege because I did not tan as good as the other kids in the trailer park.

    4. but if you think he’s a Nazi (or even really worth denouncing)

      McInnes has interviewed people/internet trolls from the alt-right before (outside of their core ‘intellectual’ group of people like Spencer and Taylor this distinction is hard to make) and he seems genuinely uncomfortable when they talk about the Jews having negative effects on white society or the concept of ‘a white society for whites’ in general (he’s also married to an Indian). He’s pretty consistent in arguing that he views the West in cultural terms rather than racial terms.

      He’s very negative towards Muslims, and he views transgender people as mentally ill. Also, as you mentioned, he’s ‘red pilled’ in the sense that he thinks women and men tend to have different advantages and goals in life. That’s what people like Robby whine about, because any discussion outside of the socially popular views on these issues makes you a monster.

      1. And I think there are valid points to be made for pretty much all of those things. Not saying I’m 100% onboard, but certainly that none of it *demands denunciation* without further discussion. He also seems to tend against legislating these things (except immigration). He’s fighting a culture war and repeatedly quotes Andrew Breitbart that “politics is downstream from culture,” so that’s really his schtick. From what I’ve seen, I don’t find it deplorable.

        1. I believe part of Robby’s ‘knock’ is also just the difference in personality. Robby’s schtick is pleading and partially kowtowing to your opponent’s position in an attempt to ‘convince’ them. Milo and McInnes say their piece, loudly and obnoxiously, and don’t give a damn. Heavens, what brutes!

      2. any discussion outside of the socially popular views on these issues makes you a monster.

        Yeah, that’s pretty much the way they throw the term out “Controversial Views”, and “Obnoxious Opinions”.

        Its all so much code language for “fails to kowtow to political-correct orthodoxy”. You don’t even need to advance ‘chauvinistic’ views or suggest some races are inferior = all you have to do is say, “I don’t care if some people have those opinions” and you’re just as bad as the actual Nazis themselves.

        basically people like robby are just as guilty of enforcing exactly the same ideological-homogenity he’s always complaining about on college campuses = only he does it in the real world, effectively handwaving away people like Milo or Gavin as ‘unmentionables’ whose opinions are not even deserving of reprinting or treating with any intellectual decency.

        he pretends like these attitudes are awful on Campuses, but totes OK when you’re in the media.

    5. Robby’s tirade about McInnes and his horrible opinions

      eh, i don’t remember it that way.

      I mean, he DID put scare quotes around the term “Nazi”, and referred to him as a “right-wing media figure”, who “it should be noted, routinely says obnoxious things that deserve criticism. He’s something of a Diet Milo”

      [*Robby, you see, never says obnoxious things, and never deserves criticism]

      It wasn’t as bad as what the Associated Press ran with, which was that McInnes was “founder of a group called the “Proud Boys.” He dubs himself a “western chauvinist,” uses racial epithets in his essays and has argued that women make less money because they are less ambitious than men

      Reuters i think did the best, merely labeling him ‘Vice Media co-founder Gavin McInnes, conservative comedian’.

      1. Yeah, I walked back the ‘tirade’ thing a little bit above. I still don’t think McInnes automatically ‘should be criticized’ without actually attacking his points.

        RE: proud boys, his explanation was essentially that porn and excessively-feminist culture are ruining boys’ sex drives and masculinity, turning them into weird, unnatural pseudo-males, which really isn’t an uncommon viewpoint at all.

  45. link text“>28 Reasons It Pays To Have A Feminist Marriage
    Don’t settle for someone who thinks feminism is a dirty word.

  46. So is the Budweiser SuperBowl ad anti-Trump propaganda, or not?

    1. I don’t know, but if it is it gets an A for trolling. What beer are the immigrants in the news these days going to brew? I don’t think they make Halalweiser.

    2. It was in the queue for months.

    1. Why do I keep thinking intersectionality is that geometry lesson I slept through in highschool? I’m twirling a compass when, supposedly, I should be slapping people with dildos. Modern times.

    2. Intersectionality is the science of breaking people down into smaller and smaller groups of people with more and more specific grievances and then trying to lump them all together and have them move toward a vague common goal.

    1. Muslims handling House Intelligence IT work? What could possibly go wrong?

      Signs of trouble have long been visible in public records. The Congressional Credit Union repossessed Abid’s car in 2009, and he declared bankruptcy in 2012, facing multiple lawsuits.

      [Hina R.] Alvi, who did not respond to TheDCNF’s request for comment, has taken multiple second mortgages.

      Security-sensitive jobs typically require background checks for credit and legal problems that can create pressures to cash in on access to secret information and documents.

      Jamal, who public records suggest is only 22 years old and first began working in the House when he was 20, was paid nearly $160,000 a year, or three times the average House IT staff salary, according to InsideGov, which tracks congressional salaries. Abid was paid $161,000 and Imran $165,000.

  47. Dear Reason.
    My meager donation that was going to your publication is going to this humble man instead. Take notice.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws95DCRL1p4

  48. The latest dire threats to free speech

    “In North Dakota, motorists who run down demonstrators on public streets could be exempt from prosecution, even if someone is injured or killed, as long as the motorist did not purposely hit the victim.

    “In Minnesota, demonstrators who break the law could be billed for the cost of law enforcement.

    “And in Iowa, blocking traffic on a highway could be a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.

    “Civil libertarians and First Amendment scholars say these proposed measures are part of a disturbing national trend to stifle public debate and criminalize the constitutional exercise of free speech….

    “”This goes beyond having a chilling effect on free speech, it puts a freeze on it,” said James Harrington, a veteran civil rights attorney in Texas who began joining demonstrations for civil rights and against the Vietnam War in the turbulent 1960s….

    “Harrington said those who would sideline dissent today would be wise to recall the noisy and sometimes messy origins of the tea party rallies and the passionate efforts to upend health care legislation in the early days of the Obama administration.”

    1. these aren’t first amendment violations at all. Minnesota and Iowa would be due to breaking the law…trespassing and causing a ruckus while ND would suggest if they got hit it was the protestors fault since it says not purposefully hit victim

      Stifle public debate and criminalize speech is what the left wants to do.

      1. How do these people miss the “peaceably” in “the right of the people peaceably to assemble”?

    2. y would be wise to recall the noisy and sometimes messy origins of the tea party rallies ”

      I don’t recall even one instance of a tea party rally obstructing roads, burning anything, or looting any businesses. False Equivalence.

    3. Well, that’s how Death Race 2000 started

      1. +100 points for old people

  49. Milo and the Violent, Well-Funded Right-Wing Attacks on Academic Freedom

    “As you likely know, a protest at the University of California?Berkeley resulted in the cancellation of Yiannopoulos’ latest speech. Social media is buzzing with right-wing and centrist condemnation of the protesters; none of these critics are offering concrete suggestions for what protesters should have done instead. Left alone, Yiannopoulos uses his speeches to target vulnerable people, as he did to a transgender student at the University of Wisconsin?Milwaukee, who subsequently had to withdraw from school. Confronted peacefully, as in Washington, his backers escalated the violence, shooting someone. Confronted forcefully???and let’s be clear that the Berkeley protesters were forceful, though, of course, loud public protest is also a form of free speech???Yiannopoulos leverages the anger he’s caused in his foes to further his minions’ sense of permanent victimization.

    “Yiannopoulos has set a neat trap. I don’t pretend to know the answer….”

    1. What they should have done instead? Ya know not get violent. Rioting and destroying property is not free speech

    2. Sense of permanent victimization. It’s funny coming from a leftist.

    3. 1) What a meandering piece of shit article.

      2) This is the same incident, I believe, that Robby also cited as the “violence” of Milo protesters. The dude was very likely acting in self-defense after the prog protesters became violent.

    4. The man who shot the protestor in Seattle turned himself in and was then released by the police. Last I heard no charges had been filed. Kinda suggests self defense to me.

      1. Yeah it’s got a huge self defense vibe because of it was questionable he’d probably be being prosecuted.

      2. The last I heard, it was one anti-Milo guy shooting another.

        1. Nope, the shooter appears to have been a milo fan. FTR.

    1. Everywhere I have ever worked has exactly the same pay scale for women as it does for men. This is in un-woke Arkansas. What are they talking about when they demand equal pay for equal work. I don’t even know what they are asking for.

    2. Based on how the number was obtained, audi would have their own wage gap i suspect

      1. Aggregates dont suggest discrimination

      2. Equal pay act of 1963 makes this illegal

      3. why is a person’s value how much they make?

      4. Corporations want to make money and 1 way is to reduce costs. It makes no sense to pay men more just because

      5. why does the dad have to tell her

    3. Oh fer fucks sake. Every relationship I have been in, my wife/girlfriend/whatever made more than I did. Except the last one. I occasionally made more depending on the year. Idiotic propaganda.

      1. But but but the commercial said women will always be less valuable than a man

      2. You may have missed a little of the message there if you were just listening and not watching – his little precious snowflake daughter was obviously winning the race against a bunch of redneck hick trailer-park trash kids there. Wouldn’t surprise me to find out some of those kids parents voted for Trump. Definitely not the sorts of people that would be driving Audis.

        And nevermind the fact that of course they’d be driving pick-up trucks – how else you gonna get a soapbox racer back and forth to the track? And how did the guy in the Audi get his daughter’s car there and back? Did he just abandon it there? Are Audi trunks really that spacious that you can fit a soapbox racer in it? WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CAR!?!?

        1. No I didn’t realize all the messages there. But yes, good point, WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CAR!?!? Filthy littering Audi driver probably threw it in the bushes.

    4. Why is there this idea that women are “valued less” than men in Western society? It’s pretty ridiculous when you look at the facts. Females are basically coddled and protected in every possible way whereas men are treated as being expendable.

    5. Why is there this idea that women are “valued less” than men in Western society? It’s pretty ridiculous when you look at the facts. Females are basically coddled and protected in every possible way whereas men are treated as being expendable.

  50. A list of things you can do to support LGBTQ community.
    Basically, they all are simply annoy the shit out of people.

    1. The gay community has full support from Lachowsky. I will treat them exactly as I treat the straight community, with indifference.

      1. “The gay community has full support from Lachowsky.”

        But what about the L, B, T and Q communities?

        You’re like only 20% enlightened, if that.

        1. “You’re like only 20% enlightened, if that”

          Indeed. Lachowsky is very unwoke

          1. Yes, but does he respect Intersectional Solidarity?

            1. Short answer, no.

            2. I guess he only supports Parallel Solidarity then…

    2. 14. Set a goal for reading at least three LGBTQ news articles each week.

      Does perusing the lesbian category at pornhub count?

  51. For what it’s worth – and I’m not vouching for the accuracy of the story – Russia Today claims to have spoken with the screaming woman at the McInnes riot at NYU, identifying her as Rebecca Goyette, an “artist.”

    If it was in fact the artist Rebecca Goyette (and again, I can’t confirm this), then here is an article about her work. (Caution: Vulgarity)

    1. (Caution: Vulgarity)

      Thanks for the fucking warning

      1. I should have said, “caution: do not read if you have a delicate stomach.”

        1. Yes, I posted before reading the article and *shudder* seeing the pictures. I should have taken your warning more seriously.

          1. And now that I’ve skimmed the whole article instead of just the first part, it’s assuredly NSFW.

      1. Jeebus, Trump has been in office for a whole two weeks! Seems a bit early to draw a lot of conclusions.

      2. Wow, that was awesome!

      3. Can’t get a fucking transcript?

    2. Pics of “Rebecca Goyette” confirm its the same person

      And the pics are pretty much what you’d expect.

      1. ewww. Wouldn’t

    3. From the comments of the HuffPo article (damn you for making me click there)

      Daniel Soule
      Ughh. “Who they are speaks so loudly I can’t hear a word they are saying”. This will only reinforce the negative stereotype so many already have about those of us who call ourselves progressive. Its actually the perfect weapon for those on the right to point to as an example of “I told you so”.

      That dude is almost woke to how idiotic progressives are.

  52. Here’s the deal:
    1) Reason’s content since the election of Trump has sucked, and it seems to be getting worse.
    2) Between the Reason’s slow server (the hag’s kid from down the street seems to have found new employment) and some sort of incompatibility with IE (and the resulting jumping up and down), it’s taken nearly 5 minutes to log in.
    So next year’s contribution is an invoice.

    Anyhow, in what the SF Chron finds to be front-page news, “dudes” showing off will be denied, uh, something or other:
    “Report: Mavericks surf competition is canceled”
    http://www.sfgate.com/aboutsfg…..909005.php

    Yep, they’ll have to go out there and show off to each other without some embarrassing name attached to it! The horror!

    1. From linked article in linked article:

      Last October, Cartel and supermodel Marisa Miller, Guess’ wife who attended Monte Vista Christian School, were ordered to pay $1 million for breach of contract with a sunless tanning company. Cartel, which is Miller’s management company, is on the hook for $700,000 of that sum.

      Marisa Miller

      Who knows what’s going on there, but I hold no ill feelings for anyone who can make a living surfing or skiing, (or taking pics in a bikini for that matter).

      1. “Who knows what’s going on there, but I hold no ill feelings for anyone who can make a living surfing or skiing, (or taking pics in a bikini for that matter).”

        Nor do I; I wish them well, along with those who figure-skate and engage in all sorts of judged drama confused with sport. If they can find a way to be paid for showing off, why, more power to them!
        But, if it needs “judges”, it ain’t a “sport”. It’s a performance, and need to go to the Oscars for awards.

        1. What is the difference between a referee and a judge?

          1. In boxing, the referee keeps the match “clean”, and the judges score the competitors.

      2. “Who knows what’s going on there, but I hold no ill feelings for anyone who can make a living surfing or skiing”

        Oh, and one of these is not like the other:
        Got a stop-watch? You can easily see who wins a skiing competition.
        Wanna argue ‘elegance”, well, talk to Brian Boitano. And don’t bother calling it a “sport”.

  53. And:
    “There’s a greater meaning behind those “Missing Obama” posters you’re seeing online”
    […]
    “likes basketball and health care.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/life/art…..908955.php

    They left out the health care parts about “your doctor” and prices you can’t afford; the rest is pathetic whining.
    No, I didn’t read it all for you; I’m looking forward to dinner and prefer to enjoy it.

    1. They should also be looking for another guy who’s been missing since 2008 – a post-partisan healer who was going to unite the country as well as bringing us together across the racial divide. That guy got enough votes to be elected President but hasn’t been seen since that time – a deranged, divisive, incompetent SJW took his place.

      1. “They should also be looking for another guy who’s been missing since 2008 – a post-partisan healer who was going to unite the country as well as bringing us together across the racial divide.”

        I think that might be the same missing individual who was going to close Guantanamo Bay, end our interventions in the Middle East, and repeal the post 9/11 surveillance state bullshit.

        1. And BRING LIGHT!

      2. That same person who labeled much of the country “bitter clingers”? The one talking about the high price of arugula as a way to emphasize with the every day man.

        I honestly never understood his personal popularity. He always seemed to be basically a male black Marie Antoinette. The caricature of her, not the real queen.

  54. “Here are all the companies that have cut ties with the Trump family”
    http://www.sfgate.com/technolo…..908460.php

    This is “Business Insider”, the local equivalent of “The Guardian”; dishonest to the core, given to misleading headlines and all the rest of the lefty press’ bag of tricks.
    The article is presented, of course, to be a statement of political rejection of Trump’s policies, and if that were in fact so, there would probably be grounds for stockholder suits regarding fiduciary duty. None were, and few, in fact, “cut ties”; they discontinued non-performing brands.
    TDS seems to show little evidence of receding.

    1. I took another peek into my Facebook feed, and no: as bad as ever.

    2. Honestly, it’s like in Team America, I expect it to end with celebrities becoming suicide bombers. They just keep working themselves up into a lather and at some point, a “boom” is inevitable.

    1. I remember back when the religious right (and the Tipper Gore/Hillary hag brigade) tried to censor music being played on radio stations. For being “satanic” and promoting things like sex and drugs. And the whole “back masking” thing.

      There was all sorts of pushback. And rightfully sore.

      Or more recently, when country radio stations stopped playing the Dixie Chicks. Where they condemned? No, the rest of the media made martyrs out of them

      It’s like how McCarthyism was bad because you punished people for their political views. But now that’s perfectly okay.

      Sports broadcasters get fired for their views, Actors have trouble finding work. So and so on. But it’s okay, because it’s in the name of social justice. Never mind communism was an ideology that killed tens of millions. That was perfectly fine, it was simply about “sharing” and if anyone got thrown into a prison camp or starved to death because they didn’t want to, well, it was just one of those things.

      1. But the music is satanic.

  55. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,
    ============
    ———>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.earnwithstyle.com

  56. Now Reason isn’t even giving the commentariat a Saturday morning article to ignore and comment underneath? What a bunch of assholes.

  57. One of the beautiful aspects of a Trump presidency, one that libertarians – even the cosmos at Reason – should be able to appreciate is that he has the ability to showcase just how unwise, shortsighted, and downright stupid our establishment brand of politics actually are. But instead, Nick is too busy furiously typing up his next piece to show how “un-serious” Trump.

    The media is hyperventilating and engaging in mass pants shitting over an EO that bans people from six countries from entering legally. This is not normal behavior, they tell us. But they were relatively silent or applauded as America intervened in and bombed people in most of those same countries. That, they told us, was normal and good.

    We can’t keep these people out, they whine, but by god we can spy on them (along with everyone else) with general warrants, add them to extrajudicial lists that deprive them of enumerated rights without due process, and detain them for as long as we please. Nothing better reveals how being an establishment hack is more about saying the right things than what you actually do.

    They are losing their mind over depriving fed funds for sanctuary cities, but clapped like trained seals at the brilliance of the feds leveraging the states with medicare expansion.

    1. These people have spent the better part of the last century building up the executive powers. Congress has abdicated its responsibilities to nameless bureaucrats in the name of political expediency. The courts have shredded the Constitution through reinterpretations.

      Trump is what libertarians have been warning these authoritarian hacks about for so long, but Reason can’t get out of its own way on the subject and give this historical moment the coverage it deserves. Their colleagues deserve and need to be mocked and ridiculed for their behavior and attitudes.

    2. “The media is hyperventilating and engaging in mass pants shitting over an EO that bans people from six countries from entering legally. This is not normal behavior, they tell us. But they were relatively silent or applauded as America intervened in and bombed people in most of those same countries. That, they told us, was normal and good.”

      I’m still amazed at that “responsible, mainstream, nonpartisan journalist” at one of the Presidential debates who came close to freaking out as she was pressing Hillary to please, PLEASE commit to confronting the Russians in Syria, because doing so is like the MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER! And Hillary assured her questioner that she would, indeed, go into Syria to threaten to shoot down Russian airplanes.

      *These* are the so-called responsible, mainstream people. I just don’t get it.

      Releasing an immigration order with (if Scott Adams is correct) the plan to correct errors as they crop up rather than plan for errors in detail in advance, is certainly a controversial and debatable move, but how is it less responsible or more evil than planning to poke the Russian bear with a sharp stick and hope it won’t provoke a wider war?

  58. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do

    ========================== http://www.4dayjobs.com

  59. Well, I’ll be rooting for the hometown Falcons against the cheaters but I see Rob Gronkowski’s Girlfriend Is Actually Gorgeous so I guess that gives the Pats an advantage somehow. On the other hand, I did see one of the experts on ESPN said the Falcons can’t be counted out and that they might very well win the game even though he thought the Pats had the edge and they might win the game also. I’ll admit I don’t know as much about football as the experts at ESPN – nobody’s paying me the big bucks for my insightful commentary – but I will hesitantly go along with his analysis that it probably will be either the Falcons or the Pats who win the game and the implicit assumption that it’s highly unlikely some other team will win.

    The general rule is that a great defense and a good offense will beat a great offense and a good defense, the Pats certainly have a better defense than the Falcons but the Falcons defense is young and seemed to be improving throughout the season – and they did beat Seattle which isn’t exactly a shabby defense. So the signs seem to point to a close matchup, much like the signs pointed to Denver beating Seattle in the Superbowl a few years ago. History and the playoffs this year point to this being a blowout, but I’m not guessing which team will be leading 21-0 at the end of the first quarter.

    1. I’m going to go out on a limb and say the team that scores the most points will win the game.

  60. can I get an invite to the steam group? if there is anyone still here. My handle is AZ_Floyd. Thnks

  61. The PA taxpayers are not “forced” to pay those films. There have been elections since the madness began, so the citizens have approved these actions by re-electing/electing the politicians who choose to spend taxes in that way.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.