North Dakota

Dakota Access Pipeline Easement Will Be Granted By Army

Regulation by presidential whim versus the rule of law

|

DakotaPipelinePacificNewsSipaUSANewscom
Pacific News/Sipa USA/Newscom

Well that was fast. According to Reuters, the Army Corps of Engineers has filed court papers stating that the agency plans to grant an easement that will enable Energy Transfer Partners to complete the Dakota Access Pipeline by drilling under the Lake Oahe reservoir. This action appears to be pursuant to an executive order signed late last month by President Trump instructing the Corps to "review and approve in an expedited manner, to the extent permitted by law" such an easement.

Environmental activists believe that preventing the pipeline's completion will help forestall man-made global warming by keeping oil in the ground. In addition, the local Sioux opposed it due to fears that it could leak and contaminate their drinking and irrigation water supplies. Nevertheless, the Corps completed and issued an environmental assessment (EA) with a "Finding of No Significant Impact" with regard to the construction of the pipeline beneath Lake Oahe. This displeased folks in the Obama administration who pressured the Corps into finding a way to stall the project. In December, acting Assistant Director of the Army for Civil Works Jo-Ellen Darcy obliged by issuing a memorandum that voided the Corps' assessment. In addition, Darcy ordered that full-blown environmental impact assessment be conducted, a process that could take as long as two years more to complete.

That was then; this is now. Consider the fact that the regulators' environmental assessment last July had concluded that the granting the easement under Lake Oahe was appropriate. Nevertheless, at the direction of Obama administration officials, the Corps was ordered to revisit and revise its decisions which it duly did. Now the Trump administration has ordered to Corps to reconsider its reconsideration and revise its conclusions again which it is evidently doing.

One way to look at what is happening is that a highly politicized regulatory decision by the Obama administration is being corrected by the Trump administration. Those of us concerned about the rule of law on which activists, oilmen, and all other citizens hope to rely, might see the situation differently: The pipeline was stalled at the whim of one president and is evidently being green-lighted now at the whim of another. Whimsical regulation is bad for everybody.

NEXT: Military Leaders Request $30 Billion Budget Increase

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that the 250 truckloads of garbage these people left behind polluted the land a hell of a lot more than that pipeline ever will.

    http://www.kfyrtv.com/content/…..54433.html

    One way to look at what is happening is that a highly politicized regulatory decision by the Obama administration is being corrected by the Trump administration. Those of us concerned about the rule of law on which activists, oilmen, and all other citizens hope to rely, might see the situation differently: The pipeline was stalled at the whim of one president and is evidently being green-lighted now at the whim of another.

    If it was stalled on a whim, implying that there was no reason to stall it, how exactly is that supposed to be fixed without reversing it? This issue has been studied to death. The permits should have been issued years ago but for Obama. Explain to me how Turmp making a decision that should have been made years ago but wasn’t because of the lawlessness of Obama is a blow to the rule of law?

    That is sorry ass logic Ron. Seriously sorry.

    1. Yep.

      No fucking way will I join calls to have the Republicans play by rules that the Democrats ALWAYS ignore.

      Sure Ron, take the “high ground” of “we shouldn’t condone this practice”…. whatever.

      If the god damn Democrats wanted Republican Presidents to follow standards and traditions, then they should have followed them themselves.

      They burned the rule book, they pay the price.

      1. And that’s why we’re fucked.

        1. Wait, we wouldn’t be fucked otherwise?

    2. It’s whimsy all the way down. Our whimsical, magical executive.

      *sighs dreamily*

    3. Look up “false equivalence” in Wikipedia & it links to this.

  2. “The pipeline was stalled at the whim of one president and is evidently being green-lighted now at the whim of another.”

    Or the correct way to look at it is the legal process was done, the easement was granted, then a political appointee of the president stopped the easement to appease their activist base, and the next president let the original process stand.

    You’re really reaching here. There is a lot to criticize Trump about, but he’s right here

    1. That is exactly it. What does Bailey think a legal process here would look like? All the requirements of the law were met and the Obama administration said “too bad we don’t like it”. That is why it was made on a “whim” as Bailey puts it.

      Does Bailey really think that the entire process should start over again just to reverse an arbitrary decision that was done counter to the law? Really?

    2. Or the correct way to look at it is the legal process was done, the easement was granted, then a political appointee of the president stopped the easement to appease their activist base, and the next president let the original process stand.

      Look, it doesn’t matter how you phrase this, Trump only OK’ed this pipeline because he hates free trade.

      1. And puppies. This is known

        1. Especially the cute puppies of his enemies and his political opposition, foreign and domestic, real or imagined.

          FS,

          Clearly I am joking along with you until I arrive at any point you where you might believe President Trump to be a president capable of improving the United States in general or simply adhering to the the rule of law.

          I think his likely unconscious desire for of a Unitary Executive (so long as he is the Commander) is similar to that of the conscious desire of Obama’s, G. W. Bush’s, and a few of their predecessors.

            1. DenverJ,

              I mentioned three of the most recent United States presidents in my post, and I clearly implied that a few of their predecessors, across the intervening years from the time that the country was wrought, had imperialistic tendencies and desires.

              1. Trump did his “due diligence” and calculus… Which is more likely?

                A) His next trophy wife will be a Native American or enviro-whacko, or…

                B) His next trophy wife will be the daughter of some rich oil & gas dude, or refiner?

                “B” looks more likely, so BLESS that pipeline! (I am not an admirer of the process, but I do like the results, in this case).

              2. Mr. Charles Easterly,

                Yes, I know. My sense of humor is not one that everyone appreciates, and that’s OK.

                *Sweeps hand over head* WHOOSH

                I kid, I kid. Seriously, you’re great.

          1. Charles Easterly is an Addiction Myth sock, right?

            Maybe this is common knowledge, but I’ve been paying attention to him for a few days and something abut him seems “off”

            1. No, Charles is cool. We all have our quirks. For example, I am well known for being super amazing and awesome and stuff.

              1. And I for my incredible good looks and sexual prowess. Let’s celibrate our idiosyncracies, not “other” people because they are different.

              2. And I for my incredible good looks and sexual prowess. Let’s celibrate our idiosyncracies, not “other” people because they are different.

                1. And my Tarzan like control of the squirrels

              3. Yes! And I am known to be a mutant with 5 splendiferous, glorimongous gonads!

                In school, I was the team captain, and we named our team the “Nads”.

                The cheerleaders would bounce their pom-poms (and their titties) along the side-lines, chanting,
                “Go, go, goNADS!
                Go, go, goNADS!”

              4. He has an upper-crust English accent in my head.

                Weird, I know.

              5. That doesn’t sound like the Crusty Juggler of old, what happened to him?

            2. Well, OK then. I stand corrected. It’s just that he made some comments about how someone could maintain a handle for a long time without others knowing if you were careful about it. Then he (in my mind) practically challenged some others to out him. I think Hyperion was one? I’m trying to find the damn article…

              1. He and “Palin’s Buttplug” have a “conversation” about staying undetected in
                THIS
                post. I don’t know how to link right to the comments. It starts about 15-ish comments form the top

    3. Yeah. I’d like an executive order telling every agency with permitting authority to follow “review and approve in an expedited manner, to the extent permitted by law” as a guiding principle on every decision. Yes, they’ll follow the law, but they’ll quickly issue a permit (or, in this case, easement) if the application meets legal requirements.

      I’d also like for fewer permits to be required, but that’s a longer discussion and would generally require legislation.

      Maybe “timely and efficient” is a better phrasing for the broad principle than “expedite”, which implies moving to the top of the pile. I could see how that turns into cronyism if the president is routinely saying to expedite specific projects, but this one is a worthy exception. The easement was essentially a done deal until stalled for political reasons. Trump’s executive order reversed that delay by going back to the original decision (unless applicable law says not to do so).

  3. I see that Bailey has reworded his interpretation since the last post on this topic.

    1. What matters is that he got it right.

      also, that i beat him to the same point by ~2 weeks

      1. G: With respect, in my Dec 4 post on the DAPL halt I noted: Sadly, neither current President Obama or President elect Trump seem overly concerned about the rule of law.

      2. Yeah I’m with baily on this one, just because he’s reversing something doesn’t mean this isn’t an issue of executive whim dictating law, something we we saw a lot in Obamas run, and sadly will not stop here.
        Also I’m less frustrated with the fact that Obama did this then I am that so many times his subordinates caved to orders he had no business pressuring people to make.

        1. But since ‘Bama did it we’re giving a pass on Trump, and we’re not at all going to feel a little dingy the next time we accuse Buttplug of tu quoque.

          Actually, I have no strong feelings one way or the other. The CoE is an executive-branch department and within the president’s prerogative. Kinda sucks that so much state territory is tied up in federal trust, but whaddayagonna do.

          1. And, in fact, if the president’s sole indiscretion is whether and how he dictates how a department decides on a bit of infrastructure which in no way deserves national scrutiny, but for moronic reasons gets it anyway, well, we can live with that. Would that more of his attention was wrapped up in picayune makework.

          2. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you, but just because Obama did it doesn’t mean I’m not going to condemn Trump for doing it. I thought that was pretty clear.

            1. It’s acceptable to do both. Or neither. Not one or the other.

              Also acceptable to be deeply ambivalent about this whole goddamn thing.

  4. Environmental activists believe that preventing the pipeline’s completion will help forestall man-made global warming by keeping oil in the ground.

    You really don’t believe that do you Ron?

    1. J: Just reporting their magical beliefs.

      1. fair enough. I didn’t think you did.

      2. Don’t feel like you have to cater to commenters, Ron. You’re just encouraging them. Us. Them.

  5. While the ACOE shenanigans by Obama was political (and the only way to reverse it was by another “political” decision), there is the whole question of eminent domain abuse. Libertarians should be concerned about that. My understanding is that eminent domain was used for dozens of properties along the route.

    1. Fuck off, asshole – this is all about whether or not you’re willing to worship our God-King Trump and no dissent from His Holy Writ shall be tolerated. All things non-Trump are entirely secondary so you’re just niggling about minor little details. We’re libertarians here, Trumpdammit!, all we talk about is how wonderful Trump is and what worthless pieces of shit anybody who dares not worship him are.

      1. the easement is across federal lands, you fucking half wit.

        1. Forgive me, John, I’m new to the Church of The Cheeto Jesus and I don’t yet know the liturgy. I’m trying, though, I’ve already drilled a hole in my head so my brains would fall out and I figure that’s half the battghjud.

        2. A relative of mine pointed out that the Federal lands were originally indian lands which I then point out that that was a moot point unless you are prepared to give back all the lands at this point

      2. My niggles are hard

        1. Is this worthy of a Swiss browmation?

    2. KerryW: In this case, the easement is across federal lands.

    3. Without the use of eminent domain, pipelines wouldn’t get built or if they were built would cost much more than they do as companies had to zig zag them around property owners who refused to sell.

      Here is the thing about eminent domain, the owner is compensated for the use. The property is not stolen. I understand the principle involved here but as abuse of liberty goes, use of ED to build pipelines is way down the list of harms going on in this society.

      1. Without the use of eminent domain, pipelines wouldn’t get built or if they were built would cost much more than they do as companies had to zig zag them around property owners who refused to sell.

        So?

        Here is the thing about eminent domain, the owner is compensated for the use.

        “Compensated” does not equal properly compensated. If they don’t want to part with their property, they should not be forced to.

        The property is not stolen.

        Yes it is and if it were any other situation, like when I took your property and paid you whatever the Hell I felt like paying you, that would be ruled stealing by anybody with half a brain.

        I understand the principle involved here but as abuse of liberty goes

        No, you have not demonstrated any application of any knowledge in that area.

        use of ED to build pipelines is way down the list of harms going on in this society.

        AH HA! You don’t care, so stealing is okay (if they had to steal from private owners rather than give an easement over federal land.)

        Slaver.

        1. AH HA! You don’t care, so stealing is okay (if they had to steal from private owners rather than give an easement over federal land.)

          Is there an outstanding case you can point to or is this the sort of situation where a private oil corporation offered a fair sum to a private landowners and everybody walked away happy but you?

          As far as I can tell, the only people in opposition are the Native American/Environmetalist whacko coalition who, at best, don’t come within a half mile of owning the land the pipeline runs over.

          1. Is there an outstanding case you can point to or is this the sort of situation where a private oil corporation offered a fair sum to a private landowners and everybody walked away happy but you?

            Hum, so what does this even mean or apply to what John brought up or my response?

            If the land owners are actually happy then there is no issue.

            1. Hum, so what does this even mean or apply to what John brought up or my response?

              No point. The theoretical and abstract application of eminent domain even when land owners retain ownership rights and are remunerated at market value are universally evil. Your neighbor not even being able can’t cast a shadow onto your property lest he violate your sensibilities and steal away your best intentions sounds free and fair to me.

              1. remunerated at market value

                Sorry, are remunerated at market value for the crops the land would’ve produced year over year.

                1. Most of the time, once the pipeline is put in, you can farm the land again….

                  1. So what? Hows about I don’t want your stupid pipe in my yard for any amount of money? What is so hard to understand here?

                  2. Not if trees are your crop.

                    Many landowners like pipeline easements because they get paid,get a free maintained shooting lane they can plant with tasty deer food. If it runs along a property boundary they get a fence and if construction access outside the RoW is required they get paid a whole lot more and a free gravel road that can bear heavy traffic

                    1. Many landowners like pipeline easements because they get paid,get a free maintained shooting lane they can plant with tasty deer food.

                      #NOTALL

                      And good for them, let them do that voluntarily. Put up a billboard that says “I want your pipe!”

                  3. Most of the time, once the pipeline is put in, you can farm the land again….

                    Right and *even if* the pipeline prevents access to an otherwise subsequently unfarmable corner of the property, energy companies will compensate for both the land lost and the loss of access.

                    This was kinda my point, there are varying flavors of eminent domain, especially when effectively starts with private land leases and whatnot. Additionally, the oil company didn’t make its money via taxes the way the city of New London does and is going to make money off the oil that moves through the pipes rather than being an expanse on subsidies like a wind farm.

                    Absent specific examples, Austrian Anarchy’s point seems to run along the lines of ‘Because eminent domain exists and/or governments (have) own(ed) property, all wells everywhere are poisoned.’

                    1. Absent specific examples, Austrian Anarchy’s point seems to run along the lines of ‘Because eminent domain exists and/or governments (have) own(ed) property, all wells everywhere are poisoned.’

                      No tard. I don’t need any damn specific examples that you can follow (see below, Transcontinental Railroad vs. Great Northern) and why it needs to be said to you in a dozen different ways is not quite a puzzle.

                      You don’t give a shit about property rights. That is all there is to it.

                      If all this government land grab jive was such a great deal already, they wouldn’t need eminent domain to begin with because everybody offered YOUR version of a fair deal would be bending over for it.

                      However, all of you Statists seem to somehow know that everybody does not agree with you, so you have to resort to force.

          2. Is there an outstanding case you can point to or is this the sort of situation where a private oil corporation offered a fair sum to a private landowners and everybody walked away happy but you?

            Hum, so what does this even mean or apply to what John brought up or my response?

            If the land owners are actually happy then there is no issue.

        2. If they don’t want to part with their property, they should not be forced to.

          Taken to its logical conclusion, your argument is that no private property can ever be taken to build a road, highway, pipeline, rail line or any kind of public infrastructure.

          Is that really what you mean?

          1. PERFECT!

            BTW, “is that what you really mean” was there something unclear in my earlier statements?

            There is damn near nothing that cannot be built someplace else. Pipelines and roads get rerouted in a meandering manner all the time for political reasons. If a seller has no interest in selling, his property should not be taken by force.

            Just review the Transcontinental Railroad, BTW fully politically routed and no longer in use, vs. the Great Northern Railroad.

            Bottom line, the government has no business being the legal thief that an individual is rightly prohibited from being.

            1. Actually you said Is that really what you mean? not what I typed.

        3. You’re the slaver if you forbid goods from traveling across your property.

          1. You win the most retarded comment here award.

    4. Corps controls most of the land on either side of Oahe in both ND and SD, and controls everything under the water. No eminent domain to be had here. All government land. Thats what this easement is about.

      All the tribes bitching wasn’t about affects to land they own but all about handwavey “don’t harm mother Earth” crap.

      1. My guess is it was about payola. Someone paid or promised to pay them at some point, likely under the table, to oppose this. It’s always about the money, and doubly so with the virtue signalers.

    5. If only there were some sort of publication which could cover this story from a Libertarian perspective.

      I’d totally bother to read the articles in that hypothetical publication.

  6. So, to be clear, environmentalists think stalling/defeating the pipeline will somehow help the environment?

    Hey, idiots, the oil is coming out of the ground, regardless. The only choice you can actually make is whether it is hauled out of the Bakken Formation via truck, rail, or pipeline. Guess which one is the most environmentally friendly/lowest carbon impact, retards?

    1. If you want to see an environmental and human disaster, check out the videos of train cars full of oil on fire in Canada a few years ago. An oil train on fire is terrifying. It is magical thinking indeed to imagine that no pipelines means no oil–oh, and the protesters DROVE to ND to protest, did they not? If they were honest they would have ridden horses or walked.

      1. If they were honest

        I don’t think that everyone was necessarily mendacious in their intent. I will accept complete vapidity as well.

      2. the protesters DROVE to ND to protest, did they not?

        Flying unicorns man.

        1. That does roll off the tongue better than single-horned Pegasus.

    2. So, to be clear, environmentalists think stalling/defeating the pipeline will somehow help the environment?

      A-firm brother. That is their magic substitution for reason and logic.

      1. They also believe it will pollute some water source of the Indian tribes..which is why they call them “water protectors” .

          1. For the lulz:

            The operation was delayed Wednesday, when activists tried to set up a camp on private property owned by the Dakota Access pipeline company and blocked Highway 1806, resulting in 76 arrests.
            The highly charged situation made it too dangerous for drivers with Dakota Sanitation to move in and out of the camp near the town of Cannon Ball, Mr. Doering said.
            “It just wasn’t safe, given that they had blocked the road,” he said. “It was doubtful that they were going to let the trucks in, and then the operation pretty much took all day to evict the protesters.”

            1. the operation pretty much took all day to evict the protesters.”

              They don’t have beanbag rounds?

    3. Say hello to Warren’s rail lines!

      1. Yep. My guess is that Warren B. grins like a Bond villain every time his useful idiot protesters show up in a news story….

        1. Warren B., alter ego of R&B singer Warren G.

      2. Like I said: follow the money…

    4. A tanker truck or train carries a finite amount of oil. A pipeline leak can = many more thousands of gallons. And it happens near waterways and groundwater. A truck or train accident may occur in an urban or pastoral setting, but pipeline accidents in the country can go unreported and unnoticed for a critical amount of time. Look at the leak in a pipeline in the same area in December of last year. A complete environmental impact assessment of the entirety of the route is reasonable. The assessment voided by the Obama administration was not a complete assessment. The company exploited a loophole to have only one part approved, then started construction on the other parts saying that they had approval because it was all the same project. The company has lied repeatedly to the press. Donald Trump has a personal financial interest in the construction of the DAPL pipeline. This is not just an environmental whacko issue. The Sioux treaty that was broken in 1879?ish? The Federal government attempted to settle with them with money in a trust in the 1980s. That money is untouched, as the tribes have not agreed to cede possession of that land that was stolen. This is not just a civil rights and government accountability issue. Can we even trust a government sponsored assessment? This is a multifaceted issue. I see nothing whimsical about the loophole or the financial connection

  7. Of course, the decision under Obama administration pressure to halt the pipeline was wrong based on the findings in the EA. The pipeline owners and their investors should have been able to rely on that original decision and go ahead with their plans.

    That being said, once Darcy supposedly set in motion the environmental impact assessment process, the activists and the tribes should have reasonable expectation that they could rely upon that decision for their plans and activities.

    Whimsical: b. subject to erratic behavior or unpredictable change

    1. That being said, once Darcy supposedly set in motion the environmental impact assessment process, the activists and the tribes should have reasonable expectation that they could rely upon that decision for their plans and activities.
      Bullshit. They lost fair and square, Obama delayed the process and restarted the EIS without any legal justification and now we are bound to follow the illegal decision because of the rule of law? No way.

      1. J: Obama delayed the process and restarted the EIS without any legal justification – this will now be determined by extensive litigation.

        1. Obama making up the law with the stroke of a pen is obviously unconstitutional. Trump undoing that unconstitutional law with the stroke of a pen is totally constitutional. (It says so, somewhere in Article 12 IIRC, that he who lives by the goose shall be sauced by the gander or words to that effect.)

          1. You bring up a good point. Does one have to constitutionally rescind an unconstitutional order seeing how the courts and congress have just punted? Or can it just be rescinded because unconstitutional. Interesting dilemma

            1. No, it’s bullshit. I see where John is coming from, but, yeah, an illegal order can’t just be ignored; it needs to be challenged and shown to be illegal.

              1. Yea i agree. Though who does this if congress and the courts just feel like being lazy. And the new guy doesn’t like the original order?

                1. Which is kinda Bailey’s point, no? The whims of the executive are deciding the issue because following the law is too much effort, or might force someone to take a position

              2. How do you propose to do that when the system is rigged against you doing just that?

    2. One thing people fail to mention when they discuss this issue is that the area that DAPL is proposing to cross make is already host to a natural gas pipeline plus electrical lines.

        1. I see what you did there.

  8. How much has the Sioux water supply been damaged by the other four pipelines in the area? I am guessing a big fat zero.

    1. That and while it is true “the local Sioux opposed it due to fears that it could leak and contaminate their drinking and irrigation water supplies” by what they said, weahouldn’t take it seriously.

      Why?

      Because they already had a new water treatment plan coming online up steam of the underground pipeline, due to open long before the pipeline was gonna be operating.

      Never trust a hippie, or people playing them for political points.

  9. Someone needs to go to jail for desecrating that flag. I’m starting to regret voting for Trump – even Hillary would have taken care of that problem by now.

  10. Maybe Trump could offer to let them open up a casino. He likes casinos, Native Americans like casinos. This doesn’t have to be antagonistic.

    1. Trump is doing this because he has no hotels on native lands.

    2. The casinos have to be somewhat close to a customer base, unless you’re Vegas with unlimited stakes. Nobody’s driving to North Dakota to play the nickle slots.

      1. Here’s how it works.

        Trump: Listen Chief, I’m a man, your a man. Let’s cut the crap and talk turkey. What do you want?
        Chief: I want to try and preserve our…OK, OK, I want a casino.
        Trump: OK, here’s the deal, how about I greenlight the casino and you can cater to the guys building the pipeline. All that newfound fossil fuel wealth is going to need to get spent somewhere, and those roughnecks are going to want to drink, gamble, and whore away those paychecks after a hard days work.
        Chief: Throw in a legal brothel and the protest ends tomorrow.

        1. Like being a fly on the wall.

    3. Prarie Knights casino 20 miles south of the protesr site….

  11. The only reason to come to Reason anymore is the links about scabies infested hobos making gay love at Bed, Bath and Beyond. Christ, the commenting feature doesn’t even work right to allow that.

    1. Yea sorry we hit our quota on those stories at like 12:21am

    2. The only reason to come to Reason anymore is the links about scabies infested hobos making gay love at Bed, Bath and Beyond

      …. was there supposed to be a second reason? because that sounds like it should be enough for anyone.

      1. What hobo sex at B,B&B is just too mundane?

        1. That happens everytime I’m there.

          1. You participate?

  12. “Environmental activists believe that preventing the pipeline’s completion will help forestall man-made global warming by keeping oil in the ground.”

    Some real low-watt bulbs, there.

    1. So glad I turned my back’s on these groups. I was such a disgusting prog when I was younger.

  13. I wonder what the relations between the engineering Romans and modern environmentalists would be like.

      1. I assume that was basically what Rufus was going for, but good on you for that pic.

        1. I let you all guide me.

        2. TOGTFO

    1. That’s a big fat obvious: fields littered with the corpses of Gaia worshippers.

    1. I see she’s moved from drapery to upholstery.

    2. Jesus she’s not going away – like Obama.

      It’s like having a cold sore that won’t heal!

      Also, fuck you vag. You’re the last person who should be pushing a female agenda after defending a rapist. You made your bed now live in it you wretched, opportunistic hypocrite.

      1. lie

        1. live still works

    3. The future is Female

      ugh, transphobic

    4. the future is female

      She’s wrong in both French and Spanish.

        1. You know who else had opinions about the future in German?

  14. Former democrat Trump responds to lefty complaint that we’re too dependent on oil from our enemies, will get accused of discrimination when he restricts oil from middle east.

    “Oil is oil, no matter where it comes from, shame on Trump”

    1. #notmyblackoil

        1. Light sweet crude is a white patriarchal social construct!

  15. Ron can we get some articles later on about foreign countries and their portfolio’s? Would be interesting i think

    http://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsh…..ssil-fuels

  16. “Whimsical Regulation” would be a great band name

  17. Democrats, This Is Your 2020 Savior

    Look who it is. No, seriously.

    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    1. That’s the funniest Franken-related anything in ages.

      1. “When I was a kid, my dad sat me down and told me some things in life just aren’t funny. And, one of those things is Al Franken.”

        1. Except the Stuart Smalley skits. Those were comedy gold. Just kidding, they weren’t. The first one was cute.

    2. I guess they figure that if a guy from TV worked for the other guys, it must be the way to go.

    3. Well, he’s good enough.

    4. My brother has been predicting this. I said never. It won’t happen. They’re going to go with the black guy or black female again because they have nothing else.

    5. Democrats, This Is Your 2020 Savior

      That’s right, him. Al Franken. …Him. Al Franken.

    6. They’d be much better off with Oprah.

    7. Trump was funny without trying to be.

      Franken was *paid* to be funny and he wasn’t.

    8. Can Obama run again?

    9. “Do you want more Trump? Because this is how you get more Trump.”

  18. Why Trump won, exhibit 42H


    Mike Huckabee’s Transphobic ‘Joke’ Slammed By Stars, Allies
    But the former governor’s misfire got spun into fundraising gold.

    I knew the comedian quoted at the end from my days of doing comedy in Chicago. I can’t remember any of her jokes, but she was pleasant to be around.

    1. the joke in question for those not wishing to give clicks to HuffPo:

      Breaking news from Hollywood! Sen. Chuck Schumer cast in lead role for remake of “Boys Don’t Cry.”

      1. I am confused…how is that a transgender joke?

        1. “Boys Don’t Cry” is a movie about a transgender who was beaten to death for being a transgender.

        2. that movie is about a male-to-female transgender who committed suicide, or something. I would bet a month’s pay Huckabee has neither seen it nor knows what it’s about.

          What should be condemned is the unfunny, Seth McFarlane character of it.

          HURR DURR SCHUMER CRIED PUT CRYBABY IN MOVIE WITH CRYING
          NEED MORE IDEA BALLS FOR MANATEES

          1. So was he mocking Schumer or huckabee?

    2. What’s the problem? Two “dudes” with tits they didn’t want…

    1. Wrong: it’s like rain on your wedding day
      Right: really not that much from Alanis, gotta say

      1. It’s like ten thousand spoons, when all you need is twenty thousand spoons.

  19. I only read the pm links headline, so IDK if anybody already said this:

    Kite boarding sounds fun. But how do you keep the kite from dragging you over a cliff?

    1. Let go of the kite. Or stay away from cliffs.

    2. Don’t go to a place with a cliff

    3. Bullshit. I know is Obama didn’t go snow kite boarding: black people dont snowboard.
      Thanks for messing up my joke, you jerks.

    4. Point somewhere behind him and say, “look a nickel!”

      1. *narrows gaze*

    1. Slowly escalating and working up

    2. Cue the campus leftists protesting the cultural appropriation in 3…..2…..oh wait. Nevermind.

    3. And even there, they can’t help but get their whacks against “White liberal feminists”.

      “intersectionality” is beautiful to behold in the wild.

    4. That’s just self defense. Trump pinatas are inherently triggering and should be stopped. To be sure, there is violence and illiberalism on both sides of this issue.

  20. Canada’s Trudeau sets up “war room” to monitor not jihad terrorists, but Donald Trump

    President Donald Trump has so unnerved Justin Trudeau that the Canadian prime minister has set-up a “war room” within his office to monitor what Liberal government insiders are calling “the unpredictable U.S. president” and to respond at a moment’s notice.

    1. One redeeming quality about Trump….is he is making these progs go nuts

    2. Trudeau is such an embarrassment.

      At least the usual moderate liberal commenters at the G&M are pasting the idea.

      1. Pasting it to their facebook walls?

    3. Fucking hell, Harjit Sajjan, you should know how to deal with Zoolander by now.

      Here’s what you do: Go up to him, and explain to him that the majority of the military hates his guts. Not enough to be a problem, but they would probably be willing to overthrow the current government and have a new election after a couple months of martial law a la Turkey if a shooting war with the United States was even likely possible. So don’t do stupid things.

      1. Wait, no, don’t do that, I get the feeling he’s stupid enough to try Stalinesque purges if anyone told him how much the military dislikes him. Just say we’ll lose and don’t have a chance in hell unless we start conscription and triple the military budget now, so focus on the jihadists.

  21. UK: Muslim killer muttered “Allah, Allah, Allah,” carried book telling Muslims to “die a shahid,” terrorism ruled out

    Terrorism was ruled out as a motive, yet the attacker was found with a prayer book entitled Fortress of the Muslim and muttered “Allah, Allah, Allah” on arrest, The Times reports.

    His book contained an extremist Salafist prayer instructing followers to “die a shahid”, before explaining that a shahid is: “One who dies fighting the kafir [unbelievers] in order to make the word of Allah superior or in defence of Islam”.

    This from the country that produced Sherlock Holmes.

    1. I blame the UK’s lack of free mental healthcare and structural oppression of brownish people.

      1. I blame the opium in Sherlock’s pipe.

    2. “I did everything I could to stop it, I went to the psychiatrist, I went to the mosque and I did prayers. It’s like something took control of me”, he later told a psychiatrist.

      He sounds like one of those melodramatic fools
      Neurotic to the bone, no doubt about it.

      1. N-n-n-n-n-n-n-neurotic,
        [guitar riff]
        neurotic to the bone.

    3. “This from the country that produced Sherlock Holmes.”

      If you read the Holmes stories, you’ll realize that the obvious suspect isn’t the real criminal, or else it wouldn’t be a problem worthy of Sherlock’s powerful intellect.

      You want to find the solution to a Sherlock Holmes problem? Look for the person who has spent time in Australia or America – they will have a Dark Secret which is connected to the crime.

      1. If you read the stories, you’ll realize that the author was kind of a dumbass.

        He couldn’t remember where Watson’s war wound was.

        He couldn’t keep track of Watson’s marriage.

        In one story, he calls the landlady by a completely different name.

        And all sorts of other errors

  22. Osama bin Laden Was Cool With His Jihadists Masturbating in a “State of Extreme Need”

    A letter from Osama bin Laden detailing the do’s and don’ts of masturbation for jihadists has been released.

    Bin Laden, who claimed responsibility for the September 11 attacks, went as far as to dictate when and under what circumstances his minions were allowed to touch themselves.

    In a memo marked “top secret”, he acknowledged that terrorists were allowed to masturbate when they were in a “state of extreme need”.

    “Another very special and top secret matter ? it pertains to the problem of the brothers who are with you in their unfortunate celibacy and lack of availability of wives for them in the conditions that have been imposed on them,” the letter reads.

    “We pray to God to release them. God is not ashamed of the truth.

    “As we see it, we have no objection to clarifying to the brothers that they may, in such conditions, masturbate, since this is an extreme case.”

    The letter goes on to say that the act of self-love has been “approved” by “the ancestors”, advising jihadists to ? well ? give themselves a helping hand.

    1. There are states that aren’t extreme need?

    2. That’s only if there are no 10 year old Austrian boys around to rape.

    3. He is following the teachings of the great military theorist Jacques Orff.

      1. + Hans Solo

      2. *golf clap*

    4. Not much of an euphemism…

    1. At least he didn’t say he was making some sort of protest about Trump.

      1. I’m thinking he was trying to capture the zeitgeist. Trump is omnipresent, so ergo, therefore, hence it was about Trump.

  23. Reasonoids —- One of my proggy friends on facebook rallying against Devos, completely unhinged.

    Does he not fucking remember that his parents drove him 10 miles everyday to go to school, from east side San Jose to Santa Clara, and lied about their residency to get there for years before they could afford to actually move there???

    Yeah other kids didn’t have a grandma in a wealthy school district whos address they could use, or parents who could drive them to across town everyday.

    1. I assume you’re calling him out on this publicly. Like on his facebook page.

      1. I’m almost at that point. Everyone who I’ve seen as anti devos either went to private school, or went to a good public school, either by moving near one or by lying to get into one. Or they are left-leaning teachers.

        I’ve said this before – one of my proggy friends sneered when we drove by an elementary school in the district we went to – “oh a distinguished school, so code word for ‘white’ school!” (he is half asian half pakistani). So completely oblivious to the fact that he’s not white, and that he should be thanking his lucky stars that his dad moved them into this district. I didn’t see he go to east san jose or to Oakland unified.

        1. I’ve told this story before but I had a former acquaintance who was like your friend. Her Mom teaches in Chicago but yet she went to Nazareth Academy in the affluent suburb La Grange. When the teachers went on strike she wrote this tirade about school choice and vouchers and I finally called her out by asking, “Despite living in Chicago and having a Mother who teaches in the Chicago Public Schools, you were sent to a Catholic school in an affluent suburb? And why shouldn’t a kid with less money in the hood have the same opportunity as you did?”

          She fucking defriended me from FB

          1. I remember during the Chicago teachers strike, some were literally complaining they didn’t have enough money anymore to send their kids to private school.

            Seriously.

            1. Most of my teachers when I was a student in CPS either lived in the suburbs and sent their children to the suburban schools or if they stayed in the city sent their children to the private or magnet schools.

              The rest of us plebs can pound sand, though.

              1. Well, let public service worked unionize, WTF do you expect?
                Even noble teachers are human and react to incentives.

              2. Study that’s a bit dated (2004 based on 2000 Census data) found 39% of Chicago public school teachers sent their children to private schools – https://goo.gl/Xr0n70

          2. She fucking defriended me from FB

            I lost a couple during the Obamacare time because I dared to stand by the principle that I did not have a duty to pay for other people’s healthcare.

            1. I got bitched out by half of my class for saying that health care was a commodity and not a human right.

              1. Scary that something that is a fact can be so controversial. I also consider the idea that voting can make a scarce resource abundant to be equivalent to a six year old asking why we don’t just print a million dollars and give it to everyone.

              2. Of course it’s a human right. All the teacher’s say so.

                That’s why they hate DeVos so much. They’re absolutely terrified by the prospect of losing their indoctrination centers.

                1. The weird part there is that they don’t realize their indoctrination powers are State or local derived, not Federal.

                  They just have this magical belief that the Feds must control it, because “Department of Education”, and we’re Education, and they, uh, give us like 9% of our budget, also because reasons.

        2. I’m almost at that point.

          The fuck you waiting for? You get to find out immediately: (1) do you need this friend? (2) is he cool shit and can he take criticism long term? (3) how great it feels to bask in the glory of dressing down a fucktard. I know there’s a certain level of pause owing to the fact that he’s your buddy, but fuck me, you gotta be honesty and mutual respect in play.

    2. Can you post text of the exchange please? I need this.

  24. Nassim Nicholas Taleb

    Is it a choice between dumbing down versus over-intellectualisation, then?

    Exactly. Trump never ran for archbishop, so you never saw anything in his behaviour that was saintly, and that was fine. Whereas Obama behaved like the Archbishop of Canterbury, and was going to do good but people didn’t feel their lives were better. As I said, if it was a shopkeeper from Aleppo, or a grocery store owner in Mumbai, people would have liked them as much as Trump. What he says makes common sense, asking why are we paying so much for this rubbish or why do we need these complex taxes, or why do we want lobbyists. You can call Trump’s plain-speaking what you like. But the way intellectuals treat people who don’t agree with them isn’t good either. I remember I had an academic friend who supported Brexit, and he said he knew what it meant to be a leper in the U.K. It was the same with supporting Trump in the U.S.

    1. It was a very strange election… The “war-mongering neocon’ ran as a Democrat, The “populist Dem” teamed up with a “so-con justice warrior” to run for the Republicans, and two milquetoast Republicans ran as Libertarians.

      We are so screwed!

  25. Religious law may be coming to America. But it’s not sharia; it’s Christian.

    “Much-dreaded ‘sharia law, or something resembling it, may well be coming to the United States.

    “Just not in the form many Americans expected.”

    Nobody expects the Trumpian Inquisition!

      1. Can’t they just make their arguments without being idiotic? How many of these people actually make a living at this? Even if it’s 10%, that seems like a helluva bubble.

    1. I’m sad I didn’t purchase stock in dry cleaning companies, what with all the pants shitting coming from the left.

    2. Meh.

      Every time a Republican is elected, we have impending theocracy.

      Which oddly somehow never actually happens.

      Doubtless due to the Brave Efforts of Democrats.

      (I have a friend on FB who goes on and on about he evil “dominionists”.

      Which only seem to be important if you read far-left media.)

  26. Here’s a truly unhinged article.

    For His Next Trick, Steve Bannon Will Undermine the Pope

    White supremacy. Worldwide.

    If it wasn’t clear already, it should be now. Stephen Bannon, the last descendant of House Harkonnen, is not someone who wants to “disrupt the elites,” or whatever techie garbage he likes to toss around. He wants to establish himself at the head of a new, worldwide authoritarian elite that will reach into every institution and that will demolish any of those institutions that stand in the way of what he wants. The man is a political thug, and Burke is a theological thug. Marriage made somewhat lower than heaven.

    This isn’t just a matter of the cafeteria having a few new and unfamiliar faces in the buffet line. This is dragging elements of the Church into alliances with white supremacists all over the world, lining up parts of the Church with the likes of Marine Le Pen in France. This is entering into an alliance with forces so completely contrary to the Church’s stated mission that they might as well give Cardinal Burke an army and let him march against the Languedoc.

    What the fuck are these people smoking?

      1. Damn, I even checked it in preview.

    1. Uhhhh… Spice I guess. Probably the Dune kind, given the errant reference. But maybe the eat-face kind because my grandma saw it on the 11 o’clock news.

    2. That esquire article is a riff on a New York Times article.

      The Times article, although biased against the Pope’s traditionalist opponents, doesn’t actually give evidence Cardinal Burke or conservative Catholics to Le Pen or white supremacists, except briefly when it refers to “…Breitbart, the website that is popular with the alt-right, a far-right movement that has attracted white supremacists.”

      1. doesn’t actually give evidence *tying* Cardinal Burke etc.

  27. I’m Finally Breaking Up With Richard Dawkins

    “The problem with Dawkins has been snowballing for some time. The mounting offenses culminated in his latest online assault: posting a video to his entire follower base that embraces misogyny and feeds into Muslim stereotypes with an Islamist character, complete with ridiculous accent. “It’s not rape when a Muslim does it.” That’s an actual line from the disturbing video. The posting resulted in Dawkins being uninvited from The Northeast Conference on Science & Skepticism.

    “As an atheist, I’m embarrassed that there are so few of us in public. Richard Dawkins is leader-by-default in a group that would reject such hierarchy but can’t due to lack of visibility. He’s holding atheists hostage. But angry, misogynistic white men who try to silence opposition through racial fearmongering already have a home base: the GOP. They don’t belong in movements that reject superstition in the interest of making a kinder, more rational world with fewer boundaries separating us from each other.”

    1. Hey look, another reason why the New Atheists suck.

      *Goes back to reading Also sprach Zarathustra*

    2. I think he’s confusing progressivism with atheism. The first one is a religion, the second one isn’t.

      1. Atheism+ is a whole thing, it was stupid, basically Gamergate for atheism. Social justice being the cancer it always is.

    3. Lefties have always thought that Republicans are going to implement a Christian theocracy in American and literally enslave women.

      The Handmaid’s Tale is basically what they really, honest, truly believe will happen someday if they don’t constantly fight against Christians.

      Meanwhile Muslims in more than one region literally capture women and keep them as sex slaves. But you can’t criticize Muslims even the slightest, because it’s racist. Never mind it’s a religion, not race, with Muslims being Subsaharan African, North African, Arab, Persian. Chinese. South Asian, Slavic (Bosnians/Chechens), Turkic,, and Indian.

  28. As an atheist, I’m embarrassed that there are so few of us in public.

    Here’s the deal. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to know you’re an atheist, unless you’re the proselytizing kind which makes no sense.

    Some days I think that I should really start going to church. Other days I think “I don’t really believe in free will so what’s the point?” I think a lot of people are that way. It takes a very special kind of asshole to think that it’s their job to teach everyone that there is no God and there is no hope.

      1. If you think that Christianity is an evil ideology leading to prolife legislation, school choice, and other right-wing horrors, of course you’ll feel obliged to save the country from that ideology.

    1. This is really BS.

      I was an atheist back in the 1980s. Then there were relatively few of us. I remember going to a tech school and despite this, i was about the only one (most weren’t religious, but not actively atheist)

      Atheists are not only common now, they are way more public. So many celebrities

    1. Obviously Colonel Sanders wants a comprehensive program of health insurance for the people who eat all that fried chicken.

      1. Sanders is an embarrassment. The old fart has no sense of how markets work. It’s all about the evils of profits, forget the fact that suppliers actually have to provide a good and service to make the profit.

        1. Except, almost literally every 1st world country in the world has socialized health care and yet pays half (or less) than what we do.

          Even Singapore, the most capitalist place on Earth has a universal health care system.

          1. we pay more and we get more. Having lived in a country with socialized medicine, the health care (such as it was) was terrible and there was very little of it.

            1. Doctors and nurses also make less

          2. Ok?

            There is medicare medicaid and Va. And obamacare subsidies

            There is no such thing as universal healthcare.

          3. yet pays half (or less) than what we do

            According to the metric of per-capita aggregate spending. That leaves two possibilities (not mutually exclusive).

            1. We consume more than they do. Why would we want to reduce consumption?

            2. We pay more for the same things. Ok, how does making the government the payer of last resort have any bearing on the price of a good or service? Prices are driven by market forces and costs. What is the source of those costs?

            Even Singapore, the most capitalist place on Earth has a universal health care system.

            No, they have a universal catastrophic insurance program with a subsidy schedule that is far less generous than the ACA. Consequently, government spending on healthcare is dwarfed by private spending. The U.S. has a rough equivalent in the form of Medicaid+HMO+EMTALA but in true American form it’s an utter clusterfuck compared to Singapore. Although, Singapore is also seeing double-digit percentage increases in costs just like most everywhere else.

      2. and he has no idea what insurance actually is, too. sigh

        1. Sanders just told a struggling business woman (owner of five salons and employing slightly under 50 people) that she should supply health insurance, even though she cannot afford to do so.

  29. The question for constitutionalists is whether process and authority matter.They ought to, if constitutionalism is based on the idea that policy is transient, while institutions and rules endure. The early indications are not all positive. The conservative blogger Allahpundit, for example, crowed about the executive order on Obamacare:

    Remember when King Barack decreed in 2013 that he would delay enforcement of the employer mandate even though the law itself required the mandate to take effect on a specific date? Conservatives like me howled that the president has no constitutional power to delay implementation when a federal statute requires it, but O got away with it. And now turnabout is fair play. If King Barack enjoyed a particular type of authority, King Donald enjoys it too. Good work, liberals.

    This is the law of the playground, the constitutional theory of “they started it.” Indeed they did. Constitutionalism ought to be the province of the grownups. It has been noted that it is amusing to see progressives rediscover the separation of powers in the age of Trump. It is not gratifying to see so many conservatives so quickly forget it.

    1. Is the employer mandate constitutional? If so, enforce it until it’s repealed.

      Is the employer mandate unconstitutional? If so, treat it like you’d (hopefully) treat a law making Episcopalianism the official national religion.

    2. “It is not gratifying to see so many conservatives so quickly forget it.”

      Following precedent set by the Dems is not the same as forgetting. Lets wait and see if the Reps try an innovative power grab of their own. I am confident they will but lets hold our fire until they do. I suspect we may see great things from the likes of Paul and Massie before this administration is over.

      1. Given that Trump is basically a New York City New Deal Democrat who has forged an alliance of convenience with conservatives on many issues, I won’t feel let down if he isn’t conservative. I will feel let down if conservatives are so enamored of his prog-bashing that they wink at any abuses of power he may commit.

        Conservatives got too close to Nixon, a near-prog who won points with conservatives for being maybe less extreme than progs on a few hot-button issues. And we got the EPA, price controls, etc. And Watergate.

        1. Now, Trump strikes me as a tad saner than Nixon (a low bar) and hopefully more ethical (a *really* low bar), but for conservatives to work with him without being swallowed up by him requires caution like the metaphor of making love to a porcupine.

  30. Completely unsurprising:

    http://freebeacon.com/issues/s…..h-parents/

    I wonder to what extent that is true here in the states.

    1. 80 percent of the victims were police officers.

      I’m guessing that part isn’t true in the US

  31. Christopher Hitchens here (in the course of eventually getting to a point about Michael Moore) makes some observations about the psychology of the types of people involved in the John Birch society in its early days, who believed that X # members of the government at that time (including president Eisenhower) were paid agents of the Soviet Union.

    The part i think is interesting is his analysis of the cynical mindset that seems so willing to believe that so many people around themselves are hopelessly compromised and evil, and yet still fully comfortable going about their daily lives.

    the comparison that immediately came to mind are the sorts of people screeching on twitter about the ubiquity of “White Nationalists” in modern day America, and who (at least pretend) to honestly believe that we live in a ‘Racist Patriarchy’ or whatnot.

    What’s absurd is not just their certainty about the evil that lurks in the hearts of (other) men, but their apparent *comfort* living in that world.

    Hitch calls it “a form of consolation for political defeat”; the more you consider their posture, the more you realize its just an escapist fantasy designed around the unwillingness to recognize their own minority status.

    Eric Hoffer also had lots to say about the same general idea.

    1. Similar is the “1 in 5 women in college are raped, so let’s send our daughters to college.”

      1. Exactly.

        There’s something facially absurd about the idea that they actually (at least pretend to) believe that sort of thing to be true, and yet remain so blase about the fact, and think that “tweeting” about the issue is the right thing to do.

        If 20% of all women were actually being raped, you’d think we’d be demanding 24/7 security provided in all dorms, women trained in jiu-jitsu, mandated pepper-spray-carry, etc. But no. Instead they wear *pink hats* and yell at Trump.

        Its a collective psychological-state. I suspect they even know that what they’re talking about isn’t “real” in the way other things are real…. but its ‘real’ in a way that has some sort of social-utility. Its a shared fantasy. Its a LARP-game.

        1. Its a collective psychological-state. I suspect they even know that what they’re talking about isn’t “real” in the way other things are real…. but its ‘real’ in a way that has some sort of social-utility. Its a shared fantasy. Its a LARP-game.

          It would make for an interesting psychological study.

          1. It would make for an interesting psychological study.

            Which is why i mentioned hoffer. that’s pretty much what a lot of True Believer is all about.

            “”There is in us a tendency to locate the shaping forces of our existence outside ourselves. Success and failure are unavoidably related in our minds with the state of things around us. Hence it is that people with a sense of fulfillment think it a good world and would like to conserve it as it is, while the frustrated favor radical change. The tendency to look for all causes outside ourselves persists even when it is clear that our state of being is the product of personal qualities such as ability, character, appearance, health and so on. “If anything ail a man,” says Thoreau, “so that he does not perform his functions, if he have a pain in his bowels even ? he forthwith sets about reforming?the world.” …. It is understandable that those who fail should incline to blame the world for their failure.

            Consider the degree to which subjects like “Neo-nazis” and “Russian malevolence” “surge of (fake) Hate Crimes” have dominated the news for the last 3 months.

            Its desperate conceptual flailing, looking for something, anything, to avoid having to look at themselves.

    2. Well, I think a difference is that there was a Soviet Union and they were trying to compromise people in government.

      Whereas there is no serious White Nationalist movement, just a small number of dumbasses who gain a lot of attention because they serve as a bogeyman. (See also, the Westboro Church)

    3. I would say the Birchers were a bit less nuts than our current crop of lefties. There were reasons to believe the soviets had moles here and in fact they did. As I recall Ted Kennedy was in cahoots with them at least once, and how knows who else?

      The fruitloops we have today look more like the people accusing the juggalos of being a ‘loosely organized pseudo-gang’ . The alt-right is a thing that only exists if you define a movement so broadly that it has no meaning.

      1. the Birchers were a bit less nuts than our current crop of lefties

        its not a contest to see who is “worst”. The point of the observation was to identify a sort of mental-state where you are capable of believing absurd things about the people around you, yet go on with your as though absolutely nothing else were at all different.

        at which point you have to realize that they’re acting as tho “its true” that the country is being run by communists… but that communists running the country apparently *doesn’t matter very much*

        crusty nailed it by comparing it to the “Rape Culture” fantasy. its the same thing.

        1. I get it. It is similar to revealed preferences. Their behavior betrays their disbelief. they are engaging in histrionics.

          Ugh. I have had one too many. One hell, maybe two or three. I better hit the bed.

          1. It is similar to revealed preferences. Their behavior betrays their disbelief.

            yep. similar to revealed-preference. tho i don’t know that revealed preferences exposes ‘actual disbelief’ as much as people’s distorted perceptions of themselves or their own behavior. When i did surveys asking people how highly they rated X/Y/Z things about products, they often were entirely the opposite of what behavioral data showed.

            (e.g. people will say they always care about “quality” more than “price” w/ a given thing, but that’s only true when the difference is within x%. more than x+% and quality suddenly goes out the window, etc.)

            The difference w/ revealed preference in this case is that you can point out the differences between what they say they believe and how they act, and they refuse to accept that there’s anything odd about it. its something much more compartmentalized and beyond rational examination, and based in mutually reinforced social delusion.

            “histrionics” is behavior designed to draw attention to one’s self, so not really that.

            1. If not that it sure does seem to be doing a bang-up job to that end.

    4. Meh, there were dozens of Soviet agents in the US government, the KGB had the US wired for sound thanks to all the New Dealers.

      1. Do i need to explain what an allusion is?

        1. It’s something Penn Gillette creates during one of his acts?

        2. I mean I see what you’re getting at, but that’s a lousy example. Bircher conspiracy theories didn’t just spring up from nowhere, there was actual Soviet infiltration of the American government at a very high level. They got the H-bomb through espionage, the entire government was riddled with Soviet spies.

          1. I see what you’re getting at, but that’s a lousy example

            Tell it to dead christopher hitchens

            and the point was not the historical aterial-reality of the bircher situation, but the hypothetical mental state of a hypothetical person operating under the assumption that the president himself was a communist stooge in disguise.

            it wasn’t technically a @*#&$ allusion anyway, but for fucks sake man = Forest, trees.

            1. material-reality”

              sigh

          2. I imagine if you were standing around the sand-table with the military general, and he pushed 1 little rock towards the rows of sticks representing the enemy and said, “and here is where you will make your flanking attack”…

            …you would go, “but that’s not me – thats a small rock.”

            and he would say, “the rock is not the point man, just imagine the rock is you and your men”…

            “Its not even the right color, really”.

            “its not SUPPOSED to be the same color for the love of”…

            “and why sticks? Shouldn’t they be rocks too? I mean, its not even consistent”

            1. GILMORE?|2.7.17 @ 9:34PM|#
              “Christopher Hitchens here (in the course of eventually getting to a point about Michael Moore) makes some observations about the psychology of the types of people involved in the John Birch society in its early days, who believed that X # members of the government at that time (including president Eisenhower) were paid agents of the Soviet Union….”

              G, you might have a point, but I can’t tell.
              How about stating YOUR point in a declarative statement and then backing it up with cites, rather than offering a links and references with something that might support the argument you might be making if we read parts of the links that might support your argument?
              Make a statement, and support it.

  32. You need to kill time, you’d have time to look these kids active. Refer to our website. Hope you get the most comfort.
    Thanks for sharing ! word cookies answers | hill climb racing 2

    1. You need to kill time

      check.

      you’d have time to look these kids active

      Did someone get ahold of the random sentence generator I linked earlier?

      Refer to our website

      Probably not.

      Hope you get the most comfort.

      That’s an odd way to tell me to play in traffic. Are you new here?

      1. Well, that bot hasn’t been around before.

  33. Ok; I made it to the end: nobody post anything else, please. Thanks

  34. 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

  35. I’m making $86 an hour working from home. I was shocked when my neighbor told me she was averaging $95 but I see how it works now. I feel so much freedom now that I’m my own boss. This is what I do>>

    ======== http://www.centerpay70.com

  36. My understanding of the first environmental review is that it was not a complete review, because the company got a permit only for one part of the line. That the company was exploiting a loophole in regulations in order to place the entirety of the pipeline without a full review. There was a recent, documented spill, resulting in some cattle deaths and who knows how much wildlife damage, just in December of last year. Not from the DAPL pipeline, but from another pipeline in the area. Major spills do happen, and a complete environmental impact statement is not unreasonable given the fact that this is the biggest freshwater drainage system in the United States.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.