John Stossel

John Stossel: The Man. The Myth. The Moustache.

The TV newsman looks back on his career at 20/20 and Fox News, and talks about the future of video.

|

When John Stossel was diagnosed with lung cancer in April, he announced it in the most characteristic way possible: He dashed off a column from his hospital bed with a quickie economic analysis of why nurses don't care when your out-of-date heart monitor beeps all night long. (The explanation involved the word sclerotic and the phrase "hospitals are largely socialist bureaucracies.")

Stossel, 69, is now cancer-free and ready to move on to the next thing. In recent years, the man with the moustache has developed an alarming habit of giving away the Emmys he won as a consumer reporter, saying he considers them ill-gotten gains; they all predate his conversion to libertarianism and the subsequent realignment of his career to preach the gospel of free markets and consumer choice.

First as a reporter at ABC's 20/20, where he made his name with his signature "Give Me a Break" segments, and then as a commentator at Fox for the last seven years, the television newsman has served as the most recognizable face of libertarianism, appearing on America's TV screens week in and week out and invading the minds of America's youths with his Stossel in the Classroom educational videos. With a penchant for antics like piloting onto the set on a Medicare-subsidized mobility scooter or printing out the entire federal register, Stossel has always prioritized making arcane economics intelligible to the boob-tubing masses.

The final episode of his eponymous show on the Fox Business Network aired in December. Starting in 2017, he'll be working with Reason TV to produce web videos and with the Charles G. Koch Institute to mentor young media professionals. He'll continue on as a commentator in a role that he describes as "libertarian senior statesman" at Fox.

Editor in Chief Katherine Mangu-Ward spoke with Stossel over the phone in December about the past, present, and future of video.

Reason: Is television getting dumber? Was there a golden age of news broadcasting, or was it always dumb?

Stossel: TV has always been relatively shallow. You can read at seven times the speed you can listen. And when there were five channels, we had to try to appeal to everybody. If you watch programming from what people call the "golden age," there was not much nuance there.

Also, our brains have changed. When I was on 20/20, we would do a 17-minute piece on gay marriage, say, or the transgender world. And when the executive producer would say, "You've got to take out two minutes," I would resist because I just didn't think you could take out those two minutes and have the story be nearly complete. All of it was so important! And yet now if I watch those stories, they are tediously long.

And do you think that's because we've gotten better at the craft of storytelling with video or do you think it's because the attention span of the viewer has changed?

The attention span of all of us has changed. We are just doing so many more things at a time. Is this worse? I don't presume to make a judgment. Before you called I was in my car listening to the Iliad, and there are parts that go on and on.

Ugh, Homer. There's so much padding. Somebody should really edit that guy.

Exactly.

If you were beginning a media career right now, would you be looking at cable news or broadcast television?

No. When I started to make video, you had to have a camera that cost $100,000, an edit bay that cost—I don't even remember what it cost! We would go out with a three-man band to cover things: a lighting guy with all the heavy lights, and the sound specialist, and the cameraman. You had to go work for a television station or a movie company. Now everybody has all this equipment in their smartphone and their laptop. So why go through those cumbersome steps?

Do you think your job is the last to go in your industry, the guy with the face in front of the camera?

John Stossel

I would be arrogant to say last, but one of the last certainly. I'm thinking about the writers. What about the guy who owns the media company, will he be replaced by a robot? Probably. Who will be last? I don't know.

But another point is that despite the fact that the electrician and the soundman don't have jobs in television anymore, they're not unemployed and they're almost certainly happier. They saw other things to do and presumably better things to do. Working with them on a story was miserable when I was a young reporter in New York. I would be all fired up to cover people who'd been screwed by the dairy monopoly or the con man who ripped people off. I would jump out of the car eager to work. Meanwhile, these guys who were bored with their jobs would take five minutes just to get out of the car and by the time they got their lights set up and gear ready, the life had been sucked out of the room. So most of the robotic improvements are great.

This is how people feel about the robots replacing certain functions up until they're the one on the chopping block. But you seem to be cheerful about that process.

Yeah—selfishly, perhaps, because I've had my career.

So when are you going to be replaced by a robot?

2045. In March of that year. When a prediction is wrong, nobody will remember. But if I'm right, then someone will say, "What a genius!"

So it's better to be as specific as possible.

Right. I assume it's going to take another 25 years before they develop robots who present things in a human enough way that it's appealing to most viewers, but the robots will never sleep and will be much smarter than I and better looking, so it's logical that people like me will be replaced.

"You have to assume people have no interest and no knowledge. It just became natural to me to do it by asking provocative questions like 'Could greed be good?'"

In my new career, I'm already accepting that I'm largely old and useless. I want to help attractive young people to jump in there and do what I've been doing.

The best way to learn is just by doing and watching it and learning from mistakes, cutting it down and seeing if you like doing it and if you can find an audience.

I see people like my son [Max Stossel] making video on the side. He's made three videos while working for other people. He's spending his own money and they get millions of hits. It's a way to test your creativity.

Are you happy that your son is following in your footsteps? Many people, particularly people in media and creative professions, would rather their kids become accountants or something.

I would not be happy if he were following in my steps. But I think he's exceeding me. That makes me happy. He's bringing in music and actors and being creative in ways that would not have occurred to me.

You're famous for your distinctive, semi-rhetorical style of questioning: "Could greed be good?!" "Are we scaring ourselves to death?!" Is that something you evolved consciously, or did you fall into it as a natural consequence of trying to elicit usable answers from interview subjects?

Mostly the latter. And not so much eliciting good answers, but from my own immaturity and lack of intellectual patience. Once I discovered the truth and the beauty and the power of markets, I was a born-again zealot and endlessly disappointed in the boring ways these ideas were presented.

Maybe it's because my father was never very good at teaching. I was frustrated that when he taught me how to race sailboats, he was so clumsy at using words and so reluctant to use them. I kept thinking, boy, I could've learned this a year sooner if someone had just told me "trim the sheet" means "pull in that rope."

I realized that no one wants to listen to the specifics of economic theory except a few professors at very high-level universities. You have to assume people have no interest and no knowledge. It just became natural to me to do it by asking provocative questions like "Could greed be good?" It makes people sit up and take notice. One of my cameramen said you have to hit the donkey on the head to get his attention. I try to find different ways of doing that.

In the era before detailed analytics data, how did you know when a story was working?

I just looked for what interested me.

So you were your own focus group?

Yeah. I narcissistically assumed if it interests me, then it would interest others. Even though with the networks there was lots of money at stake and we did have ratings, it was a very blunt form of feedback. It would come in a week later. In some cases, we only had rating periods three times a year and it would come in much, much later. And even then it would be a rating of the hour or the quarter hour. It never really could tell you if the audience was responding to you or your story or if they had just died and the TV is still on that channel.

What stories did you have to fight to get on the air?

Well, a show I did on Charles Murray's The Bell Curve [which controversially asserts that different races have different average IQs] ended up never running. And Murray at the end of it said, "You know, it's just as well because this information makes no one happy."

One of my biggest fights was my first special, which was the turning point in my career as a consumer reporter. There were a million scare stories—cancer in grass lawn pesticides, exploding coffee pots—and I realized that we were scaring people about everything and leaving out more mundane risks like driving in the rain or alcohol abuse. And that this was not a public service and, in fact, just the quantity of regulation was slowing the economy, and what really kills people is poverty, and by having a million rules that prevented the supermarket or the factory from opening we were killing people that way too. Probably more people.

"What really kills people is poverty, and by having a million rules that prevented the supermarket or factory from opening, we were killing people that way too."

Producers quit rather than participate in that show. But ABC, to its credit, agreed to put it on, adding a Nightline-like segment afterward. I wanted to title it We Are Scaring You to Death, and they eventually agreed to the question—Are We Scaring You to Death? Well, actually, Are We Scaring Ourselves to Death?

Stephen Breyer, who in the following months became a Supreme Court justice, was in the audience. I thought it would probably be the other way, but to my surprise he seemed to support me, though he was so convoluted and nearly unintelligible that we couldn't air it in the final cut.

So producers quit rather than do that show, and ABC was surprised that it got good ratings. That was my first special and that got Special of the Year. For the next 15 years that allowed me to do some more libertarian shows. A lot of resistance.

Another one was something all economists agree on: Rent control is self-destructive. Walter Williams says—it's a great line—that the best way to make a city look like it's been bombed is not to bomb it but just to pass rent control. The lawyer who reviewed the story could not accept it because he lives in a rent-controlled apartment in New York City, so in his case it was personal.

I finally got these stories on, but it took many months. One took a year and a half. It was a Reason story adapted for television called "The Nanny State," and the executive producer said, "These things don't bother me!" When they finally ran, they got good ratings. But the New York media leftists, their brains just don't receive these ideas well.

You're one of the most prominent advocates of libertarianism and free markets. You frequently get accused of being in the pocket of big business. Are you? If not, why is that accusation so common?

We celebrate the achievements of some rich people and then we become associated with protecting the rich. That gets criticized. People don't understand the difference between crony capitalists and genuine free markets. People think that if somebody makes money, that means the customer lost money. Something I read in Reason years ago that opened my mind is this idea of the "double thank you" moment. You give a clerk a buck and she gives you a cup of coffee and if you both say "thank you" it's because you both think you won something. That's not intuitive.

Will this problem get better or worse during the Trump administration?

I assume there will be more of that as this Cabinet is filled with billionaires. If I like [Labor pick] Andy Puzder and [Education pick] Betsy DeVos, I'm defending billionaires, and I'm an old white man, an old affluent white man, so it must make us fat cats, protecting our turf.

What are stories that you've felt compelled to revisit over the years, either because you got something wrong or because there was something more to say? Are there topics you feel like you haven't gotten right yet?

I was foolishly convinced that we were already in an era of rampant inflation, so much so that I bought gold and silver. It's been my worst investment. I keep thinking it will happen, but it certainly hasn't.

John Stossel. Photo by Julian Dufort.

I've tried various ways of telling the entitlements crisis story. I was captivated by this many years ago at 20/20. How do you get people to care about the abstract stuff? I interviewed my father. I tried graphs. I went down to old-age homes in Florida and took them from saying "Don't touch my Medicare" and walked them through how they're collecting much more than they've put in and how it's unsustainable and how their grandchildren are getting screwed. By the end, maybe half were convinced. I thought that was a convincing story.

Since then I've learned that there are those who understand reason and the majority who will never get it. And nothing I can do will make much difference for most people.

Trade is very difficult for me to get right, to explain how wealth is created so that Donald Trump could understand it. Zero-sum results are just so much easier to understand.

Why do you think it's so hard to tell the story of why trade is good and important?

I think of the time when David Kelley [of the Atlas Society] said to me: "Who did more for the world, Mother Teresa or Michael Milken?" And for younger readers: Michael Milken went to jail for some form of securities fraud which he may have committed and Mother Teresa gave her life to help poor people—but the truth is that when Milken created junk bonds he created millions of opportunities for people. Millions of companies exist because junk bonds exist. He did much more for the world, all for self-interest!

There's the moment when I was interviewing Ted Turner. He'd just given $100 million to the U.N., and I said, "Well, you're a good businessman, you created CNN and many companies that have produced good things. Probably if you spent your money doing more of that, you'll do more good for the world than giving it to the bloated U.N., which will squander it." He walked out of the interview. But things like that make the point.

"Trade is very difficult for me to get right.…Zero-sum results are just so much easier to understand."

Likewise, the greed of the businessman, showing how food gets to market, following the hard work done by the rancher who raises the cattle, and how many people are involved in working hard to drive the truck at 5 o'clock in the morning to go pick it up, the investment in refrigeration equipment to get it to the supermarket, the packaging and the plastic and just thousands of people all working who don't give a damn about you, who care mostly for their own self-interest, but that's why you have a steak on your table. Not because of any goodwill or any micromanagement by government.

By being able to stand 12 minutes and show that stuff, I think we could communicate that.

Trade is much harder because it's so subtle, the millions of little gains. You can walk into a factory that's being closed because the foreign competition is cheaper, and you can interview those people who have just lost their careers, and they're crying and you are instantly moved. But it's important to tell the harder story. The Donald Trump tariff screws poor people. It hurts the innocents. We need to stop ignorant politicians from doing things like that to people.

This interview has been edited for style, clarity, and length.

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.

531 responses to “John Stossel: The Man. The Myth. The Moustache.

  1. Love ya Stossel. Here’re best wishes for the best outcome for your continuing good health.

    If you can make the economics clear, I think there are many who would enjoy reading/watching that.

  2. We’ll be missing you being regularly on TV, but I look forward to seeing what you can do when more of the decisions are completely your own.

    Three cheers for Stossel!!!

    1. Stossel for Preisdent!

  3. Explaining trade takes too long and requires paying attention with an open mind. Start with buying a pencil or chicken sandwich, mentioning “I, Pencil” or the guy who took 6 months and $1500 (?) to make a chicken sandwich entirely on his own. People understand that specialization pretty well. Go on to cars, houses, computers, phones, etc. and the case for specialization and its associated trade still makes sense — but people get so hung up on national borders, especially for a big country like America. “Why do we need the Chinese?” The scope is too big and people’s minds just won’t stretch that far. Try explaining that for everything we build here, something else can’t be built because there’s no manpower or capital.

    It’s the scale which baffles people. Even people who work in small companies of “only” 100 people seem to think there’s always some way to squeeze more work out of “somebody else”, but of course not them, they are snowed under with work. Expand that company to thousands of employees and they just “know” there’s somebody somewhere slacking off who could do the extra work that some special project needs.

    And a country? Look at the unemployment rate, look at the closed factories and warehouses they see on the news. They may understand why a rental car or apartment takes time to turn around between customers, but factories? Workers? Why can’t those idle unemployed be put to work Right Now!

    1. International trade is where things really go downhill. Try explaining that the trade deficit is just an accounting fiction, that dollars out have to equal dollars in, that exports are to imports as jobs are to paying for food, housing, clothes, and toys, that foreigners can’t buy our stuff unless they have dollars which they got from selling us their stuff. It all makes you sound like the eggheads or rich people trying to confuse them, and besides, the scale gets in the way again.

      You can explain trade deficits with the local shops — everyone has trade deficits with the local grocer, gas station, car dealer, landlord, etc, but runs a trade surplus with their employer. But try extending that to countries and you’re back to being an egghead or rich jerk trying to confuse them.

      1. Not that I disagree but every time I hear this…foreigners can’t buy our stuff unless they have dollars which they got from selling us their stuff…It strikes me that if true then it must also be true that we can’t buy their stuff without their money which we get from selling them our stuff. So you get a chicken/egg problem/paradox thing.

        1. The same logic applies to every business, from a kid selling lemonade (where’d he get the capital to buy the lemonade before he’s made any money selling it?).

          Credit. Banks. Capital. Investment.

          1. Not a good analogy, it’s entirely possible to start with nothing, you don’t need to buy anything first to sell your labor. Kid can earn by doing chores then buy the lemons etc, etc. Not the same as the ‘they can’t buy from us until we buy from them and we can’t buy from them until they buy from us’ loop.

            1. An excellent analogy, since you brought up goods, not mere labor.

            2. While it is entirely possible to start with nothing, eventually you will need capital. The raising of capital requires stable and enforceable property rights,which are very weak in many third world countries. Hernando de Soto does a good job of explaining this problem in The Mystery of Capital.

      2. Yeah man! “The Donald Trump tariff screws poor people.” Says John, yeah!

        Trumpty Dumpty, He’s quite off-the-wall,
        Trumpty Dumpty won’t stay in His toilet stall
        He just goes ahead and takes His shits,
        Totally regardless of whereever He sits
        Whenever He simply, no way, can sleep,
        He Twits us His thoughts, they’re all SOOO deep!
        He simply must, He MUST, Twit us His bird,
        No matter the words, however absurd!
        He sits and snorts His coke with a spoon,
        Then He brazenly shoots us His moon!
        They say He’ll be impeached by June,
        Man, oh man, June cannot come too soon!
        So He sits and jiggles His balls,
        Then He Twitters upon the walls
        “Some come here to sit and think,
        Some come here to shit and stink
        But I come here to scratch my balls,
        And read the writings on the walls
        Here I sit, My cheeks a-flexin’
        Giving birth to another Texan!
        He who writes these lines of wit,
        Wraps His Trump in little balls,
        He who reads these lines of wit,
        Eats those loser’s balls of shit!”

      3. I have a shorter line of reasoning with which to befuddle the dipshits…

        If trade is so-so-SOOO bad, and barriers are SOOO good, then what is so sacred about international borders? Why not “good jobs for good residents of 15367 Booger-Snot Court”, and my family should refuse to trade with ANYONE? We do our own tool manufacture AND our own iron ore digging, home dentistry, yada-yada. Straight ticket to poverty, the more we refuse to specialize and trade! Which boundaries exactly? Machs nix!

        1. Because of scale. People think once the # of people involved (such as the entire USA) is big enough, there are no gains to be had from expanding that farther. They may even think trade barriers would be a good idea for a state as large as Calif. to have.

          1. I think that a good (also short and sweet) response to too much of that kind of thinking is as follows:

            Look at Germany, England, Switzerland, Japan, Singapore, etc. … Nations fairly firmly dedicated to free trade (if not also for immigration in many cases; yes, this is true… Sometimes they’re doing restricted trade in immigrant labor), like these, they’re are all pretty wealthy!

            Now look at North Korea, which is not all ALL much into free trade… They much-so support “self-sufficiency”! And they are dirt poor as all git-out!

            1. Oh, hey, more along the same lines…

              Free trade and respect for property rights are kind of a package deal. “The Donald” believes in taxing the shit out of free trade (stealing much of it). So do the pirates of Somalia (especially) and also Eritrea (to a bit of a smaller extent). All of Somalian and Eritrean emulation of the policies of “The Donald” have NOT made these 2 nations very wealthy!

        2. I always point out that if free trade is bad because it “takes jobs away from Americans”, automation should be bad for the same reason. After all, if an American is losing a job, what difference does it make whether they lose it to a foreigner or a robot?

          If international trade should be banned, then so should automation. Let’s go back to knitting clothes by hand and farming with hand tools. Let’s outlaw calculators and computers so that banks have to employ an army of number-crunchers who spend all day working out equations with paper and pencils. Why not? Think of all the jobs! There will be jobs as far as the eye can see!

          … And that’s why it’s wrongheaded to believe that “job creation” is an unqualified good that should be pursued at the expense of everything else.

          1. Good point, I have to add that to my quiver of arrows!

      4. I prefer a more basic explanation: both parties are trading items of value. What difference does it make whether the value is in the form of goods or dollars? And as an example, if the only international trade the US had in a year was someone buying a new Toyota Camry, would that be a bad thing? That would generate a trade deficit. And if it isn’t a bad thing, why does it become bad when we do these trades on a large-scale basis? This explanation doesn’t always work, but it usually makes people think.

      5. “everyone has trade deficits with the local grocer, gas station, car dealer, landlord, etc, but runs a trade surplus with their employer.”

        Actually, that’s the perfect analogy that people might understand.

        You should see if Stossel has any openings on his staff. You’d be a valuable addition.

    2. I just thought I would offer up two thoughts on why some people have trouble with trade.

      One is something familiar to libertarians. When a company moves their production somewhere else, regulations can make it hard for the area to recover. Government often makes it too hard to replace businesses that have left. In many cases that is also the cause of the original company leaving. Regulations are hard to see, and it is easy to blame trade for an area being economically depressed.

      The other hasn’t been touched much in this forum, emotion. It can be hard for a person to leave an economically depressed area. They may have spent their entire life in that area. Their entire family may be in the area and may have have been for several generations. They may have family members who can’t or won’t leave that they feel an obligation to help out. All these factors can add up and make it hard for someone to leave an economically

      Personally, I’m in favor of much free trade (not necessarily these 10,000 page trade deals) as possible. I think it is best for everybody in the long run. But we need to understand people can be hurt short and long term by changing economic trends. We need to make sure whatever regulations exist don’t hurt the possibility of an area to recover. And finally, we need to at least understand why people stay in area where the economy is depressed.

      1. Let all the pepples in depressed areas become high-paid doctors and lawyers and regulators and such!

        1. It would happen if we’d just adopt Bernie Sanders’ free college for everyone plan!

          1. Well, we already have proof of the failure of that plan.

            How many inmates in prison are earning their degrees while incarcerated?

            How many end up in high paying jobs because of that?

      2. I think it is best for everybody in the long run. But we need to understand people can be hurt short and long term by changing economic trends

        This is pretty much it. I think the basic Macro 101 arguments for free trade are sound: as a principle, I have no problem with non-cronyist business owners operating in whatever manner yields the highest profit (it’s their business, not mine), and the basic utilitarian argument for trade (that lower prices for goods raise everyone’s living standard) is solid. The problem arises in assuming that the changes that occur during the process of progressively freer trade are frictionless – many economists implicitly assume this – and in waving away the perspective of those who lose out in that transition.

      3. Yes, emotion plays a huge factor in people’s economic decisions. In fact, it is the single most important factor in most decisions. That is why the concept of “rational man” is completely fallacious. People make choices entirely on how it will make them feel. Once in a while, they make a choice on how it will make them feel down the line, rather than immediately (delayed gratification, low time preference, etc.). Being close to family is more important to many people than moving away and being financially successful. However, what we must keep in mind is that these are all choices and that people are ultimately responsible for their choices. Thus, if you choose not to move away from a economically depressed area, that is a choice you are free to make. But do not impose on others because of that choice by demanding government subsidies.

        1. “what we must keep in mind is that these are all choices and that people are ultimately responsible for their choices”

          Bravo!

          I think the very same thing every time I read emotionally based pleas to “help the homeless”. The subtext is always that they are not responsible for their own misery. In fact, the pundits often claim that it happens through no fault of their own; that it could happen to any of us at any time.

          I agree, it could happen to any of us. But, only because of the choices we make. I choose not to live three paychecks away from homelessness. But many in our instant gratification with no consequences society do not. Don’t come crying to me when your child like life choices implode.

    3. I had a small commercial print shop for 20 years, I once had to explain to a demanding customer that we had the ability to print National Geographic in house. But it would take a year to produce one copy and cost 100K, At the same time the guys with 50″ web presses couldn’t even bid our bread and butter work. All about specialization.

  4. Reason should put Stossel in charge of talent. Let him fire/hire writers.

    1. This. Stossel is one of my heroes. This place would look and sound way different if he were in charge of things instead of that dishonest d-bag Nick Gillespie.

    2. Are you mad, sir? He brought Fox Biz Kennedy! She who got Foster and Welch fired!

      1. I’d hardly call being Editor At Large fired. Unless of course the ‘at large’ part was the ploy to make him leave the office.

        1. Manhunt Continues: Reason Editor Still At Large

          1. WE DON’T TALK ABOUT…oh, that’s not who you mean.

  5. “Stossel, 69, is now cancer-free”

    Best wishes for a continued recovery and a long and fruitful career!

  6. You know who else was a man and a myth with the mustache?

    1. Borat?

    2. Tom Selleck?

    3. David Crosby?

    4. Caitlin Jenner?

    5. Billy Dee Williams?

    6. Groucho Marx?

    7. Yosemite Sam?

    8. Ron Jeremy?

    9. Charlie Chaplin?

    10. Rollie Fingers?

    11. Tom Selleck?

      1. *sigh*
        Read first, then post. Read first, then post.

        1. No, that one was good enough to post twice.

      2. I think you gave the best answer

    12. Chuck Noris?

    13. Joel Quenneville?

    14. Also: Ron Swanson

    15. Sam Elliott?

    16. Fu Manchu?

      1. Ron Burgundy?

    17. Sam Elliot?

    18. Tom Selleck?

  7. In an earlier thread there was some discussion of the death penalty (which I’m ambivalent about), but the idea was OMG if prolifers were *really* prolife they’d want to abolish the death penalty in all cases because the death penalty is *just like* abortion (or worse), and Catholic doctrine says the same thing!

    This 2001 article by a cardinal give a somewhat more nuanced take on Catholic teaching – the death penalty is not categorically wrong in the sense that purposefully killing those known to be innocent is wrong. At the same time, of course, there are problems with the death penalty especially under modern circumstances.

    1. But doesn’t the death penalty prevent someone from being able to repent their sins and achieve salvation? Sitting in a jail cell for year after year with not much to do but self-reflect seems like it would be better for the growth of the soul.

      1. Good point, and it reminds me of

        (a) Samuel Johnson’s quip that the prospect of execution concentrates the mind and

        (b) Abraham Lincoln’s proclamation refusing clemency to the slave trader Nathaniel Gordon but giving him two extra weeks to drop all false hopes of clemency and reconcile himself to God –

        “…a large number of respectable citizens have earnestly besought me to commute the said sentence of the said Nathaniel Gordon to a term of imprisonment for life, which application I have felt it to be my duty to refuse;

        “…it has seemed to me probable that the unsuccessful application made for the commutation of his sentence may have prevented the said Nathaniel Gordon from making the necessary preparation for the awful change which awaits him…

        “In granting this [two-week] respite, it becomes my painful duty to admonish the prisoner that, relinquishing all expectation of pardon by Human Authority, he refer himself alone to the mercy of the Common God and Father of all men.”

    2. But, but, but………..without the death penalty, where would Catholicism find it’s savior. He had to die for our sins you know.

  8. http://heatst.com/culture-wars…..collapses/

    Angela Merkel met state governors last night to discuss expelling failed asylum seekers from Germany.

    Merkel’s popularity has been seriously dented as a result of her policy of welcoming more than one million immigrants to her country since 2015.

    With a general election scheduled for September, she is said to be desperate to boost her chances of securing a fourth term in office.

    Despite covering the story extensively in 2015, reason has oddly lost interest in the refugee crisis in Europe. It is difficult to overstate just how wrong reason was about this story and this issue. Everything they claimed would happen, hasn’t happened and everything their critics claimed would happen has. Reason was wrong about this story at every level. Yet, despite this, advocates that the US adopt the exact same policy that has turned out to be so disastrously wrong in Europe.

    There is no longer any reason to take either the magazine, its staff or the Reason foundation seriously on the issue of refugees or immigration. When you refuse to acknowledge the consequences of your preferred policy and continue to advocate for it despite it producing undeniably horrible results, you are no longer a reasonable person. You are a fanatic.

    1. It’s different here John. Different.

      We have Big Macs.

      1. And we don’t put mayo on your fries.

        1. Not fries. Frites.

    2. Reason seems to substitute ideology for reality on this matter to an alarming degree. I know that open borders is the dogma, but they absolutely refuse to acknowledge that open borders combined with a welfare state combined with a culture which no longer demands assimilation is not a recipe for a free society, but for a Balkanized hellhole.

      1. Reason seems to substitute ideology for reality on this matter to an alarming degree.

        FIFY

      2. Viking Viking Viking…. The progs and democrats WANT this nation to be a hellhole. You’re missing the point completely. The progs (sans demos) want this nation to be a shit hole, which is a different thing entirely. When the democrats wake up and say ‘this isn’t what we wanted’, they’ll simply be lined up against a wall with the rest of the fascists and shot. Just think: You’ll probably have one of these useful idiots right beside you, vibrating with terror, when the rifles fire.

  9. Something I read in Reason years ago that opened my mind is this idea of the “double thank you” moment. You give a clerk a buck and she gives you a cup of coffee and if you both say “thank you” it’s because you both think you won something. That’s not intuitive.

    Not intuitive, but easily explainable. A mutually-agreeable trade involves two people each trading something of lesser value for something of greater value. I trade you an apple for a banana because I like bananas more than I like apples, you agree to the trade because you like apples more than you like bananas. Put it in those terms and people understand the “value” or “worth” of something is subjective – a Coke isn’t actually worth a dollar just because that’s what the price tag says. If the store-owner readily sells the Coke for a dollar it’s because the Coke is worth less than a dollar, if you readily buy the Coke it’s because the Coke is worth more than a dollar. It’s subjective and there’s no arguing with somebody’s subjective opinion.

    Would you pay ten dollars for a nice liver-and-onion dinner? I would – I like liver and onions. Am I wrong to think a liver-and-onion dinner is worth more than ten dollars? If you hate liver and onions, are you wrong to think ten dollars is worth more than a liver-and-onion dinner?

    What if I told you that I think snorting a gram of coke up my nose was worth a hundred bucks?

    1. What if I told you that I think snorting a gram of coke up my nose was worth a hundred bucks?

      I’d send you my pager number?

      1. I’d say try ten or fifteen dollar increments.

    2. You give a clerk a buck and she gives you a cup of coffee and if you both say “thank you” it’s because you both think you won something. That’s not intuitive.

      That is completely intuitive. You both did win something. If either of you didn’t think the trade was beneficial and put you in a better position, you wouldn’t do it. I can’t understand how someone could see that as not being intuitive.

      1. It’s not intuitive to those steeped in bullshit about consumer capitalism.

        Consumer capitalism is a theoretical economic and social political condition in which consumer demand is manipulated, in a deliberate and coordinated way, on a very large scale, through mass-marketing techniques, to the advantage of sellers.

        1. How DARE they trick me into something I might want or need!!

          1. Well obviously, if somebody else buys something I personally don’t want or need, they must have been tricked, because my wants and needs are better.

            1. This is something in medical practice that has changed dramatically in the last 20 years because of this dogma. It used to be that pharmaceutical reps could come by the hospital, and maybe they’d bring lunch for the staff, or bagels and coffee in the morning. And in exchange for that, we docs would give them a few minutes of our time, to hear a bit of their spiel, and perhaps even learn an interesting facet of drug X because of a research article they’d show us. And maybe it might change your prescribing habits a bit, or maybe it wouldn’t.

              But you didn’t change your prescribing habits because you felt indebted for the damned bagel. You traded a little bit of your precious time for that bagel, that’s all, and you still used your best judgment when treating patients. You were under no obligation to anyone. It was really no different than seeing a TV commercial during a ballgame you’re watching. You didn’t feel you had no choice but to buy a Ford just because you liked the game, right?

              But to hear other docs, for taking food from drug reps, we were completely ‘tarnished’ and scummier to them than they now see Trump voters. I even remember one doc coming in and eating a bagel, only to find out that it was drug food — and she immediately spit her bite out onto the floor and started screaming at everyone for not telling her.

              (continued)

              1. These same docs made such a stink that now drug reps are banned from hospital grounds, and if you ever go to a drug dinner, where in the past you might meet a famous researcher, and get to hear him or her talk about relevant medical information that wasn’t even slanted towards the drug in question, your name gets put on some website saying that you received a ‘gift’ from the drug company (your $60 meal) that anyone can easily search. And thus, I suppose, you can’t be trusted as a thoughtful, independent physician, because you ate a chicken dinner.

                And the overall thing is, it’s too bad. The conversations we used to have during those dinners, about topics much wider than the sponsor’s product, ended up being some of the most useful learning experiences I’ve ever had in my career.

                So, because so many people believe we’re victimized by marketing, doctors don’t have nearly the professional interactions they once have, new concepts and innovations don’t get nearly the exposure they should, and by and large, it’s our patients who end up missing out.

                Oh, and by the way, those ‘holier than thou’ docs who spit out bagels – they tend to only know what they learned years ago, and never seem to progress. You’d be stunned at how many of these docs prescribe way out-of-date protocols, and have no concept of current best-practices and evidence-based guidelines. But they are pristine from ‘profit-motivated’ influences, and seem to want to make sure you know that every time they speak.

                1. I found it strange that that the guy who inspects your car (in PA) has to take a refresher course every five years, but the guy who can cut into your heart or brain never needs any additional education.

                2. But taking money from the state to do research and then saying we need more state is oh-so-pure.

        2. It is the old ‘false conscience’ bullshit.

          It reminds me of my childhood.

          “Here try this kidney pie.”

          *I try small bite of kidney pie*

          Me – “Is it supposed to smell and taste like piss?”

          “No, I soaked all of the piss out”

          Me – “I don’t think you did. It smells and tastes like piss.”

          “Well eat some, it’s good. You will like it”

          1. Goddamned squirrels gnawed away half my comment.

            “Well eat some, it’s good. You will like it”

            1. And did it again. Where is my .22?

          2. The comment was supposed to be an illustration of my experience with people telling me what I like, insisting really, when I did not like it.

            Goddamned squirrels.

            1. The squirrels had a sudden craving for kidney pie. There were no survivors.

              1. Contrary to popular belief, squirrels will eat meat. They have been known to eat baby birds from the nest.

                1. Jesus! The squirrels are zombie progs!

        3. But sellers are also consumers. Corporate employees are also customers.

          These are not mutually exclusive groups.

          That’s where the idiots that accept that every economic transaction as being a win for one side and a loss for the other are so far off base. Their basic concept is warped. They’ll never understand.

      2. I can’t understand how someone could see that as not being intuitive.

        Well damn, John, maybe you really are a libertarian.

        I’ve told the story here before about going into a store with my nephew and automatically thanking the clerk as she handed me my purchases and my change and he laughed and asking me why I was thanking the clerk when I was the one giving her the money. I had to explain to him the idea that she gave me a nice bag of valuable stuff in return for a little green slip of paper and obviously I got the better end of that deal – and if that were not so I wouldn’t have made the exchange.

        When I told that story, at least one of the commenters on this very site snorted a reply that that was nonsense, that money is more valuable than the things you buy with money. There’s really no use in arguing with anybody who doesn’t immediately understand that the only value in money is the things you can buy with that money. Even if you save it and invest it, you’re still buying future security with that money – you’re saving the money now so that you’ll have more money later and your intent is to buy more stuff later.

        1. It is the same sort of thinking that happens when people think hoarding gold is going to save them if society falls into chaos. The gold is only good if you are able to buy something with it. Not that hoarding gold is necessarily a bad idea, but it is not some cure all that will save you no matter how bad things get or necessarily any better than hoarding things that would be useful in a crisis.

          1. I mean if you’re talking a genuine societal collapse, then old silver dimes and quarters, ammo, first aid supplies, underwear and socks still in the package, and various other items are going to be far more valuable and liquid as trade goods, and the silver coinage is probably only going to be useful a year or two past the big drop, when things have settled a bit, and you’re much more likely to be trading silver dimes for laying hens then you are for a Big Mac.

            Some kind of TEOTWAKI situation, a Krugerrand is going to be hard to move and get value for. Good riding horse maybe?

          2. I mean if you’re talking a genuine societal collapse, then old silver dimes and quarters, ammo, first aid supplies, underwear and socks still in the package, and various other items are going to be far more valuable and liquid as trade goods, and the silver coinage is probably only going to be useful a year or two past the big drop, when things have settled a bit, and you’re much more likely to be trading silver dimes for laying hens then you are for a Big Mac.

            Some kind of TEOTWAKI situation, a Krugerrand is going to be hard to move and get value for. Good riding horse maybe?

            1. I have a friend who birds cases of whisky. Drunks will trade food, ammo, and clothing for that.

              1. Hordes not birds. I think this is a first for the birds, don’t tell the squirrels.

          3. Lead is the better choice. Lots of it.

            I don’t need no stinking gold if I’ve got lead. You’ll see.

    3. Liver is gross. Coke is, too, but I like the way it smells.

      1. Liver is not gross.

        I am going to fry chicken livers tonight in your honor DenverJ and consume it with copious amounts of Tabasco sauce and ketchup.

        1. Liver isn’t gross, it’s vile.

          1. You need to try it with some fava beans and a fine Chianti.

          2. Liver isn’t vile, it’s disgusting.

        2. Suthenboy, let me point out the inarguable reality to you. If you put Tabasco on canned oysters, they taste good. i grant you that if you pour enough Tabasco (which is the nectar of the gods) on liver (avian, mammalian or reptilian), you can probably make it palatable enough to not hurl it up in your girlfriend’s face; but that doesn’t necessarily make it good.

          1. Wrap dried kelp (nori) around cheddar cheese and it tastes like oysters. Vegetarian seafood.

    1. Interesting bit here. My grandfather was one of the soldiers in the arkansas national guard who was sent to little rock in 1957 to block the “little rock nine” (the first black students to enter the previously segregated high school after brown v board of education.) His guard unit was later Federalized to force the arkansas governer to allow their entrance. He told interesting stories about those times.

      1. In all seriousness, he might consider publishing a memoir. If he’s into that sort of thing.

        1. I wish he would have. He was an amazing guy. Born in 1919 on a sustenance farm. Dropped out of school in 8th grade to help support his 8 siblings. He fought in europe. Had a special dispensation from his C.O. in the army to allow him to go to OCS without a high school degree. He ended up a major in the National guard. Went to college after the war and got a degree in agriculture from the University of arkansas. Married my grandma and raised 7 kids on his farm. He was the hardest working man I have ever known. He was staunchly Catholic. (that should interst you, eddie) he died in his home 3 years ago at the ripe ago of 95. He is missed. More than 1500 people went to his funeral.

          1. I had a grandfather like that, only he was born in 07 and missed the war and college part. This country used to produce some amazing people. I hear about people like your grandfather or mine and then see the snowflakes at Berkeley whining for their safe spaces and can only wonder what the fuck went wrong.

            1. Same here. My grandfather was a hell of a guy. My father in law too. They just don’t seem to make them like that anymore.

            2. Leftists took over academia is what went wrong. Now they’ve created a monster and it’s out of their control.

              1. The common thread here is that they were all a man’s man.

                The students at Berkeley, and elsewhere, all whine because as Arnold once warned us, we’ve created a society of girly men.

                Call me sexist? Fine. But please, please don’t tell me men and women are “the same”. It takes hormone therapy and surgical reconstruction to obtain gender sameness for a reason.

                The next time there is a call to arms, whether actual warfare or just something mundane like civil unrest, you call out the women….and the girly men. We’ll see how that works.

          2. Wow, thanks for sharing. Today a guy can’t get into the army with out a high school degree, much less go on to college.

            1. In a World War situation the military isn’t so picky. High school kids lied about their age to get in the service or quit high school for factory and railroad jobs. Women and 4F’s built tanks, planes, and ships.

  10. You’re famous for your distinctive, semi-rhetorical style of questioning…

    And also terrible, terrible turns at playing devil’s advocate. But I’m just glad Stoss is on the mend.

    1. You’re just pissed because you missed the Mustache ride.

  11. Hey, I’m in Canada this week (Trying my level best to Make Canada Great Again) and I caught something on the local news: “Islamic school in California becomes fourth Muslim institution to refuse federal funds from Trump”.

    Umm, why is an Islamic school receiving any federal funding?

    1. I’d take it one further, why is any school receiving federal funds?

      1. Sure, but if we generally accept that schools can get federal funding, but everyone goes apeshit if they catch a whiff of Christianity in an education program.

        I guess these Islamic schools pass the Lemon test?

        1. My guess is Devos said the rules about gender and religious discrimination was going to apply to someone besides Bob Jones University.

          1. I’m actually wondering the same thing.

            1. It would just be so shocking to find out that the Obama administration was selectively enforcing the law for the benefit of favored groups. You know?

              1. I’m really curious to know why. I did some reading on the subject and apparently a number of religious organizations over the last few decades have foregone federal funding because they didn’t want the OCR breathing down their backs.

                From what I’m reading, if your religion has a “bros before hos” element to it, that can get you into hot water with the feds in regards to the money faucet.

                I’m wondering if there’s anything in Islam that might fall into this category?

                1. Nothing in Islam would apply in this case. Their schools always fly the rainbow flag next to the US flag.

                  1. Or any other western flag.

              2. He was giving them the money for the express purpose of fighting extremism.

                Cuz they have to be paid to teach their children not to kill people and blow things up

        2. The Lemon Test sounds like a viral YouTube phenomenon.

          1. Or living with my ex-wife.

    2. According to the article I read, it was a program begun during the Obama administration to send money to Islamic schools to support programs that fight extremism. They don’t want the money now that Trump is in charge.

      http://www.sacbee.com/news/bus…..46279.html

  12. “Ugh, Homer. There’s so much padding. Somebody should really edit that guy.”

    D’oh!

  13. I liked the episode where he explained how the free market system has kept the price of mustache rides safe and affordable for all. I saw a guy offering mustache rides for 10 cents. 10 cents!

      1. Look, during the Sheriff’s convention, your bottom bitches charge more. It’s simple economics.

    1. Ten cents and up, depending on weight.

  14. The Cabinet Nominee All Republicans Should Reject
    GOP senators should take a stand against Trump’s pick for labor secretary, Andy Puzder.

    Puzder is soft on illegal immigration and opposes the minimum wage!

    “Puzder has also been an influential critic of minimum-wage hikes and overtime regulations, warning that such measures would force employers to replace low-wage workers with machines. He seems animated by the Luddite conviction that productivity-boosting automation is necessarily a bad thing, despite the fact that rising productivity levels are essential to wage growth….

    “In a sobering survey of the U.S. labor market, economists Alan Krueger and Lawrence Katz observed that over the past decade, 94 percent of net job growth came in the form of temporary help agency workers, contract workers, on-call workers, and independent contractors and freelancers. Though this has been good news for those who want greater flexibility, it’s been an enormously difficult time for people seeking stable, 9-to-5 employment. Labor force participation among prime-age men has remained depressed despite recent employment gains, especially among those with high school diplomas or less. Clearly we need a new approach….”

    1. it’s been an enormously difficult time for people seeking stable, 9-to-5 employment.

      Is there any such thing as 9 to 5 employment. I don’t know anyone who has a job that reports to work at 9. I have been working 7 to 7 for years.

      1. Probably not since that Dolly Parton movie.

        1. What a way to make a livin.

    2. I was going to make a joke about how I’m sure all Republican leaders are breathlessly awaiting Slate’s advice, but then I look at what they actually end up doing when they have power and I think…yea, they probably are reading sites like Slate or at the least the NYT’s and taking their recommendations seriously.

    3. Allmost all of that is a response to Obamacare.

      1. That, plus all the minimum-wage hikes in major cities.

    4. Long live the gig economy.

  15. The same Slate author (Reihan Salam) says social conservatives should fight for stay-at-home parents

    “…Just as there is a strong case for paid parental leave, there is a case for supporting parents who devote years of their working lives to supporting their children’s social and cognitive development. This support can take many forms, from tuition credits designed to help mothers transitioning back into the workforce, to a more generous refundable child credit, which families could use to help finance paid child care or to ease the financial burden of keeping a parent at home….

    “By taking up the cause of stay-at-home parents, social conservatives wouldn’t just be preaching to the converted. A large (66 percent) majority of Hispanics believe that children are better off with a parent at home, as do half of Democratic voters. Whereas opposition to same-sex marriage put social conservatives at odds with younger Americans, fighting for more choices for the next generation of parents would surely put them in a better light. And who knows? If you win over the parents, you might win over the kids, too.”

    1. What the fuck is he talking about?

  16. Stossel is the knees.

    OT: Black high school basketball players are harassed by 60 students dressed up for ‘Hick Night’ chanting ‘Build that wall’ and ‘Get them out of here!’

    Parents said Connellsville students yelled chants including ‘Build that wall!’ and ‘Get them out of here!’ at black Uniontown players.

    The Connellsville fans were sporting gear like camouflage baseball caps and flannel shirts with the sleeves cut off as part of the themed night.

    McDonald said that as soon as the athletic director was notified of the offensive behavior, he stopped it ‘within two or three seconds’.

    He also said he spoke with the 60 students to explain how their actions were perceived, and that the conversation was met with ‘wide eyes’ from the students who said that they were ’embarrassed’.

    1. In spite of the misunderstanding, McDonald reiterated his strong support for theme nights, and said that he expects next week’s ‘Al Jolson night’ to go off without a hitch.

      1. Don’t forget the Speedy Gonzalez theme they are planning for track season.

        1. “Andale! Andale! Arriba! Arriba!”

    2. Reason doesn’t cover things that happen at high school basketball games.

      1. And neither should any other publication.

  17. That’s cheeky! Calvin Klein plays This is Not America and Mexican immigrant designer sends ‘f*** your wall’ underwear down the runway as New York Fashion Week gets political

    The fashion industry is becoming increasing political. Calvin Klein played This is Not America and a Mexican immigrant designer sent ‘f*** your wall’ underwear down the runway at New York Fashion Week.

    For his first collection at the helm of the iconic American label, Calvin Klein, Raf Simons blasted David Bowie’s ‘This is Not America’ to open and close his show on Friday morning.

    Next to make a clear political statement was the budding LRS Studio, whose Mexico-born designer declared ‘f*** your wall’ and ‘no ban, no wall’ on the back of models’ white underwear.

    TW: photos of lady panties with messages written on the tushie side. Also, photos of Sarah Jessica Parker and Anna Wintour.

    1. Fashion, eh?

      You know what other seven-letter word begins with “f”?

      1. Farting?

      2. I count 8 – if you include the space.

        1. Ftoffel. (archaic spelling)

  18. CIA freezes out top Flynn aide

    A top deputy to National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was rejected for a critical security clearance, effectively ending his tenure on the National Security Council and escalating tensions between Flynn and the intelligence community.

    The move came as Flynn’s already tense relationships with others in the Trump administration and the intelligence community were growing more fraught after reports that Flynn had breached diplomatic protocols in his conversations with the Russian ambassador to the United States.

    On Friday, one of Flynn’s closest deputies on the National Security Council, senior director for Africa Robin Townley, was informed that the Central Intelligence Agency had rejected his request for an elite security clearance required for service on the NSC, according to two people with direct knowledge of the situation.

    1. So… he’s not in like Flynn?

    2. I think the President being commander in chief and all that gets the final say on such things. They need to tell the CIA to get bent and give the guy his security clearance. The CIA needs be ended and replaced with an entirely new inteligence agency built from the ground up. Put their Ivy League asses on a stick for the rest of government to see and understand what happens to you when you are both incompetent and insubordinate.

      1. Funny how the CIA never felt compelled to point out Hillary Clinton, whom wanted the top security job in the country, wasn’t fit for any sort of security clearance after that whole bathroom closet server to hide the criminal activity of the Clinton foundation fiasco…..

        Methinks the CIA – like so many Obama era agencies that had their top brass replaced with sycophantic leftists whom thought their primary mission was allegiance to the guy in the WH and the progressive movement- is too politicized and dangerous, and in dire need of a cleanup at every level…

        1. The CIA, dating back to when they were the OSS, has always been composed of “the right sort”. They’re Yalies and Harvard people, recruited from the elite universities by other people who went to those elite universities. They’re Wilsonian progressives through and through.

          1. Exactly!

        2. Hmm, a casual Google isn’t bringing it up, but I recall reading something about such shenanigans happening at the Department of Justice, where people would proudly hang Obama posters and otherwise be openly partisan in a way that was unprecedented in previous administrations, Democrat or Republican. Some folks really drank deep of the Lightworker’s Flavor-Aid.

      2. One of my secret wishes for the Trump Presidency is for him to get so aggravated with the CIA that he abolishes the agency in a fit of temper.

  19. Is there anything good left on Fox News now?

    1. They booted Napolitano and Stossel, so no. You can turn the volume off and just watch the girls legs. Does that count?

  20. Hey Reason, where’s your love for e-Cigarettes now?

    (CNN)One in four teens who vape say they’ve used e-cigarettes for an alternative technique known as “dripping,” new research finds.

    Dripping produces thicker clouds of vapor, gives a stronger sensation in the throat and makes flavors taste better, according to a study, published Monday in the journal Pediatrics.

    1. Is that anything like jenkum?

    2. It’s worse than you think:

      Detergent pods burning babies eyes out!

      Oh noes! Hey, how about this? Don’t let your damn rugrats stick detergent pods in their eyes!

      What if those drippers now start smoking these baby eye burner pods? Trump won’t do nothing!

      1. Smoking babies are better and tastier too.

    3. According to Krishnan-Sarin, “Emerging data is also showing that e-cigarettes contain many other chemicals like propylene glycol and glycerine, and they also contain a lot of flavor chemicals.

      Emerging data is also showing the lemonade contains many other chemicals like water and sugar, and it may also contain a lot of lemon juice.

  21. “Since then I’ve learned that there are those who understand reason and the majority who will never get it. And nothing I can do will make much difference for most people.

    You don’t have to make a difference with most people–just a critical mass of them.

    Very few people are born free market capitalists. Someone or something persuaded us. And I don’t think it’s usually Paul on the road to Damascus type moment. It’s an accumulation of things. Discussions we have with people in school, with people at work, things we read, and, yeah, things we’ve seen on TV. We add what we can, and even if we don’t change the world with one thing we say or do, the accumulation of this stuff makes a difference.

    I bet you’ve made a bigger difference than you realize, Mr. Stossel. We all make a difference. All we can do is preach the libertarian gospel–fight the good fight–and look what’s happened. I never thought I’d live to see the iron curtain fall. I never thought I’d live to see gay marriage or legal recreational marijuana. Authoritarians are scared to death of what people say to each other or say in the media–for good reason.

    Keep on truckin’.

    1. One has to come to the realization that a person who has decided to identify with the left has left logic and reason behind in favor of ‘feelz’. It’s very rare to get someone who has reached that point to come back to reality. The best chance to win over people from the left is at an earlier age. Which is why libertarian outreach should be focused on millennials. As hopeless as they seem, they’re still the best opportunity. Especially if they’ve left their parents basement and entered the workplace. Older progs cannot be reached by any method. They’re truly lost souls.

      1. Spot on. I’ve known a few very proggy people who turned once they entered the workforce and began to understand the concept of economic freedom. That then often expands to freedom in general. And I’ve known no one who turned more left once they became an independent well-adjusted adult.

        1. I have two, leftist prog nephews. They both encountered shellshock when they found out as they received their first paychecks, that they $8/hour they earned at the hardware store turned to something quite less when the federal and state governments whittled away their share to support the prog agenda.

          They are both in their mid thirties now. One has completely parted ways with leftist feel good, help the poor thoughts. He’s a techie at Apple. The other? He’s a lost cause. He’s taken some hard knocks we thought would wake him up. He’s become bipolar instead, has no life and sponges off the first to sustain himself.

    2. I think it’s important just for people who want to get it to have someplace to go. At least something out there to tell them that it’s not just you, you’re not alone, and the false choices you’ve been presented have real alternatives.

      I spent many a visit here recovering from the bullshit poisoning I picked up everywhere else in my life, and it was a great comfort in a troubled time. It still is, even with everything going on around here lately. Especially the comments.

      If libertarian media made no difference, why would statists be so desperate to get rid of it? What are they afraid of?

      So yeah, I’ve enjoyed Stossel’s work here and I wish him well. I hope he keeps doing what he’s doing in some form.

  22. Check out this newest refugee sob story outrage from Yahoo:

    Refugees in America now fleeing to more immigrant friendly Canada

    “Among the first wave of immigrants to Canada in the wake of Trump’s measure was a two-year-old boy who reportedly begged his mother to let him to die in the snow because he could walk no further.”

    Umm, yeah, that really happened. And they forgot once again to finish the story, the part about Canada not letting the poor frozen refugees stay in Canada.

    1. Maybe they should have taken a bus or hitched a ride. Just a thought. Or if they don’t like the cold, stayed where they were.

      1. It must be funner to be deported from Canada than from the USA. You know this is the leftist media’s fault. They’re ensuring these hapless people that Canada is welcoming to all immigrants regardless of their status. And what about Mexico? Mexico says that the USA should welcome in all of it’s impoverished folk. So surely Mexico will welcome these refugees, right? And it’s not cold in Mexico.

        1. I would strongly advise against going to Mexico. Mexico will not just deport you. They will throw you in prison for violating their immigration laws first. Go to Canada.

          1. Right, because you skip the part about a few weeks or months in a Mexican hellhole before being deported.

            1. Or years. The Mexicans don’t play around with immigration.

      2. They were probably trying to get farther away from Cytotoxic and didn’t want to wait…can’t really blame them

        1. STOP LYING. I pwned you all and you TEAM RED tards are too stupid to know it.

    2. Among the first wave of immigrants to Canada in the wake of Trump’s measure was a two-year-old boy who reportedly begged his mother to let him to die in the snow because he could walk no further.

      Two others lost their fingers to frostbite in -20 degrees Celsius (-4 Fahrenheit) temperatures when they made the same trip in December.

      […]

      Ahmed took a bus to Minneapolis, where he met a man who dropped him off at the border with instructions to “walk north.”

      Ahmed said he had seen snow in the United States, “but not like this.”

      I’m confused about the message here. Is the story saying that Immigrants are literally risking the deadly, foreboding and unforgiving land of Canada to avoid Trump’s America? Trump’s America is so bad, the people are even willing to go to Canada?

      1. Actually the message is that people with TDS lie their asses off. Prepare for four years of fantastic bullshit.

        1. It’s gonna be ugge!

  23. http://www.thestreet.com/story…..-ever.html

    Dodge introduces the 900+ horsepower Demon. I have never been really into drag cars or drag racing, but if I had the money I would be tempted to buy this monster just to go around and humiliate nerds with their fucking electric golf carts that they are so proud of how quick they are to 60.

    1. The Tesla is now officially the fastest production car in the world to 60. So good luck with that.

  24. Mexican farmer’s daughter: NAFTA destroyed us

    If you ask President Donald Trump, Mexico won the lottery almost 25 years ago when it signed NAFTA, the free trade deal with the United States and Canada.

    “It has been a one-sided deal from the beginning of NAFTA with massive numbers of jobs and companies lost,” Trump tweeted on Jan. 26.

    But if you ask Griselda Mendoza, the deal nearly destroyed her family and her community of corn farmers in the southern Mexican state of Oaxaca.

    “Before NAFTA, everybody here grew corn. People didn’t make much money, but nobody went hungry,” says Mendoza, 23, sharing common lore from her region. She was born just after NAFTA was signed.

    A switch in perspective that is interesting. She says that NAFTA destroyed local farming, so most of the men in farming towns moved to the US illegally to find work, and they send money back to support their families.

    1. There are large parts of Mexico that are damn populated exclusively with women and children and old people as all of the working age men have come to the US to work and send money back. It is an interesting question whether that has been a good thing for Mexico.

      I would be very curious to find out how much that sort of economic displacement has contributed to the rise of the Mexican drug gangs. It is not like the US didn’t buy huge amounts of drugs from Latin and South America before Mexico turned into a failed narco state. I wonder how much the loss of these sorts of substance livings and the loss of so many able bodied men contributed to the near complete collapse of law and order there. I have no idea how much but it would be interesting to find out and I have never seen where anyone has bothered to answer the question.

    2. Do you remember the huge protests in Seattle against NAFTA? And now the same people are protesting against Trump’s desire to even change the agreement to some extent. WTF? Oh yeah, it’s progs, the cognitive dissonance is strong.

      1. The left has hated NAFTA for decades. Saint Bernie campaigned on repealing it. But since the Devil Trump is against it, now everyone must object because RESISTANCE!! or something.

        1. Olbermann is streaming his own RESISTANCE! show. The symbol is a safely pin. You can’t make this shit up.

          1. Nothing says brave resistance against the man like a fucking diaper pin. Yeah, you couldn’t write this stuff as fiction.

      2. That giant sucking sound you hear is Winston’s mom.

      3. the huge protests in Seattle against NAFTA

        I thought those were against the WTO, more-global multilateral trade agreements, not NAFTA in particular, which was more bi-lateral and narrowly controlled.

        NAFTA came in force in 1994, and those mass-protests didn’t happen until 1999.

        I don’t doubt they included NAFTA in their list of grievances, but they certainly didn’t politically mobilize against Clinton in any way before or during the time he was actually in power, when said protests would have actually had some specific effect. It seemed to me that Seattle thing at the time was more like “incoherent Leftist rage” at a wide variety of things – most of them “global” in scope, rather than any trade-specific argument.

        1. *as a meaningless aside =

          i think the 1999 Seattle protests were something that really flipped me from being “vaguely sympathetic to left wing ideas” (at least in the sense of having graduated college with no particular political leanings) to strongly opposed to their entire worldview.

          it seemed to me that they were a combination of hopelessly naive and dangerously stupid. It was a giant “mask slippage” which revealed that the Left was mainly about “Self-Righteous Pseudo-Environmentalism + Identity-Politics + Anti-Capitalism”, all of which seemed to me to be intellectually-bankrupt ideas which won temporary victories only by shouting-down and intimidating their opponents.

          basically, those assholes helped make me a full blown libertarian, if only because it was the most coherent argument AGAINST their stupidity.

    3. NAFTA also almost immediately destabilized the country when the Zapatistas basically declared war on the Mexican government the day it was signed. At least there’s less active conflict now, but now they’ve got Marxist ‘anarchists’ they have to deal with.

      1. It would be nice if the media would ever cover Mexico and explain what the hell goes on down there. What happens in Mexico has a pretty direct effect on what happens here. But the media never covers it because the 20 something liberal arts majors who make up most of the media are too stupid to learn a foreign language and too big of cowards to go down there and find out what is happening.

        1. Come on man, be serious! Since when have you seen the snowflake guardians of the progressive movement bother reporting on anything that harshes the prog’s narrative?

        2. I’m pretty sure the 20-something liberal arts majors’ knowledge of Mexico doesn’t extend further than the tourist districts in Cancun or Cabo San Lucas.

          1. I’m pretty sure the 20-something liberal arts majors’ knowledge of Mexico doesn’t extend further than the tourist districts in Cancun or Cabo San Lucas.taquerias in the Mission District.

            FIFY.

            1. Taquerias are not limited to the Mission. They are common throughout the western U.S. The former northern part of Spain and then Mexico.

      2. I wouldn’t blame that on NAFTA. I’d blame that on the local corrupt officials who swooped in to take Mayan communal land in the wake of NAFTA.

        Mexico has major problems with land ownership and land titles.

        Some of it stems from tribal land that’s been assigned, farmed, utilized, etc. using tribal customs that stretch back millennia–and don’t have title.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejido

        Some of it goes back to fucked up attempts at land reform stretching back to the Mexican revolution.

        If you want title to this land, you have to dig up the decadent of every single person who had a claim to use that land in the past. You literally may have to chase down hundreds of family members and get them all to agree to a price, which, spread across hundreds of owners, has little or no benefit to them. If you build on that land, and a descendant comes forward whose signature you didn’t collect, the ownership defaults back to him–and he can throw you off his land and take possession of whatever you built on it.

        In practice, this typically means that some patriarch of the family farms it or the land just sits their fallow because no one–not even in the family–can get clear title to get a loan from a bank (they can’t repossess it from you if you don’t own title free and clear) to build something on it.

        Again, I’d hardly blame NAFTA for that situation.

        1. Sounds like most of Africa it a us indian reservation.

        2. Anyone have any idea how many times Mexico has had land reform? Every square inch of the country has about 50 legal owners, most of whom don’t give a shit unless someone tries to do something with the land. Then they wait until the crops are ready to harvest before swarming out of the woodwork.

          yeah, you could say they have problems with land ownership.

          1. As I understand it from some previous business dealings. non-Mexican citizens cannot gain title to property in Mexico at 100%. We were required to have a percentage of Mexican ownership which was fulfilled by Mexican law firms who offer such title services for a fee. We put them on the title with a percentage of ownership to comply.

        3. I have no doubt that issues with property rights is one of the things that keeps their farms from competing strongly with ours. But that cuts both ways. US companies build factories just below the border, and then ship the products they make back to the US, because not having to follow US rules makes it cheaper than building it here. In both cases you have an unbalanced situation exposed by free trade that causes grievances when one side “can’t compete.”

          1. I don’t see how countries being forced to compete with each other over regulation is a bad thing; regardless, the land situation in Mexico doesn’t make manufacturing/distribution land more valuable than it is in the U.S.

            I’ve looked at land deals on both sides of the border. U.S. land is more expensive precisely because it’s easier to develop–despite the regulation–in part because the land rights are well nailed down. I may not want to spend a million dollars on an EIR in the U.S., but I’d rather spend that on land in the U.S. that I’m sure I own than spend a million dollars in equity on Mexican land that might turn out not to be all mine.

            If Mexico were more desirable than the U.S. for manufacturing, that would mostly be because labor costs were lower in Mexico. The problem Mexico has had since 2001, when China joined the WTO, is that having cheaper labor than the U.S. isn’t much of an advantage when Mexican labor is still more expensive than China’s.

            1. I didn’t say it’s a bad thing, but it does hurt some and causes very real grievances. It would be foolish not to acknowledge that.

          2. That Americans can enjoy a higher standard of living because we buy things made by former Chinese peasants isn’t just a theory. Even Krugman concedes that the benefits of free trade with China and Mexico have already been realized. Standards of living improve when poorer people can afford to buy things they couldn’t afford before, so there isn’t anything about forcing American consumers to buy products made by expensive American labor that could improve the average American consumer’s standard of living.

            If all that manufacturing moved back to the U.S., the economy would not be better. We would quickly find that we couldn’t afford to do, buy, or consume, what we have now. Our standard of living would suffer. . . . even if the well connected few who work for the UAW were better off than before.

    4. If we American agriculture can produce corn cheaper than poor farmers, I have a hard time believing the average Mexican consumer is worse off than they were before NAFTA because of that.

      Shall I dig up a story about how the corn ethanol mandate for gasoline is evil because it drives up the price of corn for poor Mexicans, too?

      Regardless, that free trade displaces the most inefficient uses of land and other resources isn’t surprising, but that’s what creative destruction is all about. I have no doubt but that if the UAW were destroyed by market forces tomorrow, the UAW members who get paid $65,000+ per yet to screw in lug nuts all day will be worse off than they were before.

      That hardly means market forces driving the UAW out of business would be a bad thing for everyone else in the world. Yeah, inefficient Mexican farmers were hurt by competition and needed rent seeking to stay in business. But Mexico’s poor are hardly worse off because NAFTA made the cost of corn meal fall through the floor to its appropriate market level.

      1. There are winners and losers in free trade as well as immigration. That isn’t an argument against either or government coercion being used, but it doesn’t really help matters when the people who advocate for these things refuse to acknowledge that anyone ends up worse off. There are people who see their wages decline. On the flip side, there are displaced people in these third world countries who can’t compete with the influx of cheaper Western trade goods.

        But a job is not a piece of property. Nor is your family farm’s continued profitable existence guaranteed. Especially when it comes at the expense of consumers, as stated.

        1. Well, like I said, people who rent seek, use market barriers and regulation, etc. to keep themselves competitive will lose–and they should lose.

          Inefficiency loses. Why should anyone be forced to buy cars made by people who are paid $65,000 a year to screw in lug nuts?

          “Creative destruction” was never about nobody losing, and who said it was?

  25. the libertarian senior statesman

    Meh. I like Stossel, but he’s less “Milton Friedman” to me, and more like Fight Back! with David Horowitz or ‘That Guy With Question Marks all Over His Suit

    He does good work, but I can’t really quote him.

    1. He’s not deeply intellectual (like you and me… you and I? No, you and me, because me very intellectual).

      But he is an honest man who appears to be interested in the truth and is effective in reaching what I believe to be a larger audience than the intellectual pointy heads… like I. Me… fuck it.

      1. an honest man who appears to be interested in the truth and is effective in reaching what I believe to be a larger audience than the intellectual pointy heads

        Take that, Geraldo and Phil Donahue!

        (*i would include Morton Downey Jr, but for the fact that he is both very dead, and that Trump is basically his political ideal made manifest)

      2. He may be a very intellectual person who feels he should mansplain libertarianism.

  26. I assume it’s going to take another 25 years before they develop robots who present things in a human enough way that it’s appealing to most viewers, but the robots will be the viewers too, while the humans never sleep and will be much smarter for it.

    See, he still needs an editor.

    1. The robots need to wear a thong bikini (or less) to catch my attention.

  27. Australia is stripping people of their Australian citizenship for joining ISIS.

    http://tinyurl.com/ze9xyfu

    —-The Guardian

    If I understand this story properly, this guy was an immigrant to Australia. He was busted and sent to prison in Australia for a terrorism plot. After he got out of prison, he made it through an Australian airport using his brother’s passport and made his way to Syria (with his kids), where he joined ISIS. He married his 14 year old daughter off to another ISIS fighter. He became the point guy for cutting off the heads of ISIS’ enemies. He’s posted pictures of himself and his young son holding up and showing off severed heads.

    There are numerous refugees who were resettled in the United States and are known to have gone to Syria to join ISIS. I’ve read reports in the newspapers that have accounted for more than dozen at a time leaving from the Somali expatriate community in Minneapolis.

    I hope we have screening procedures in place that will prevent these people from simply coming back and living among us without any consideration for where they’ve been and what they’ve done. These people presumably have U.S. passports. Giving people U.S. passports is a serious thing. We should be really careful about whom we give them to.

    1. Why are you so hard on the guy? He is obviously a good family man.

      1. In all seriousness, I am trying to figure out how the ninth circuit would prevent this guy from coming back to the U.S. if he were an asylum seeker to the U.S. rather than Australia–and had a U.S. passport.

        There are dozens of Americans who have joined ISIS.

        1. Quit your bitchin! Just like the government, they’re here to help.

  28. Off topic: Did I miss the AM links, or do they not do that on weekends?

    1. No AM links on weekends.

      We generally get two or three posts max on Saturdays, and that kind of turns into the AM links–people just post whatever.

      On Sunday, we typically get just one post–and that becomes like AM links again.

      1. Also, people who are commenting on H&R on Sunday morning are probably not good people and probably terrorists.

        Ok, let me shorten that.

        Also, people who are commenting on H&R on Sunday morning are probably not good people and probably terrorists.

        1. Right, don’t believe anything any of the commenters tell you.

          1. I can’t even tell truth from sarcasm these days. And everyone keeps changing their names since the great woodchipper rebellion of 2016. Now we suddenly have all these new people or has everyone just changed their posting names again? Trumpocalypse upheaval of 2017?

            1. I for one didn’t start posting here until after the election. (I was linked to Reason from Facebook a while back and stuck around to learn more about Gary Johnson, but decided I liked how there was a news site with an actual community, however odd, in the comments.)

              1. Who are you calling “odd?”

                1. Seriously, who? Because we have The List and can share it with you.

            2. A long time ago I had an orange name but somehow that changed. Seemed rather arbitrary and callous.

          2. What if they tell me to put the candle back?

    2. Only weekdays. They tend to only post 2-4 articles on Saturdays and 1-3 on Sundays.

      1. Just not any libertarian articles. That died when Stossel stopped writing. Now we just get CosmoFluff and have to make our own threads from scratch.

        1. Meh,the food beat guy’s stuff is usually libertarian/free-market oriented.

        2. 2 CHILI LIVES, HERETIC.

  29. rI wonder if Stossel could be persuaded to run as the LPs candidate for president in 2020 if a campaign war chest of, say, $10 million could be raised? It’s not like he’d be putting his career on the line or anything.

    1. Are you crazy, running a TV personality for President? That would never fly!

      1. Drew Carey should run.

        1. Kennedy for VP. That way if 3rd parties actually get in the debates this time, only libertarian viewpoints will be heard by the masses, since Kennedy will constantly interrupt everyone else.

        2. I’d like an explanation of what the fuck his kid was doing at the inauguration first.

          1. He was qualifying for his Urban Fire-Starter badge.

      2. Or a cowboy actor. We do not indulge absurdities here.

    2. Should be good for +8% in the polls just for the stache. Will be offset by -8% in the polls due to whoever the inevitably horrible presidential candidate will be this time. One thing about the LP is that they have an abysmal ability to pick decent candidates.

      1. A libertarian ticket of Stossel and Mike Rowe would be damned entertaining and worth supporting. It will never happen. Instead, you will get another episode of the Gary Johnson show explaining how giving up your guns and baking gay wedding cakes for Syrian refugees is the path to true freedom.

        1. I mean, I honestly think Mike Rowe would be a good President.

          1. Me too. Same with Stossel.

            1. Me three. I would love to vote for either one for Pres.

              1. They are too smart and have too many principles for them to run for president.

        2. I mean, I honestly think Mike Rowe would be a good President.

          1. (Struggles valiantly to avoid telling a “Mike Rotch” joke)

            1. Dick Hertz for VP.

            2. *sigh* That’s “Mike Hunt”, Eddie.

              The jokes only works with a believable name.

              1. Joe Zass?

  30. Have I mentioned I like Stossel?

  31. http://blog.simplejustice.us/2…..ee-speech/

    An interesting explanation of the scary logic and rationalization that goes on among the left.

    1. No sane person takes these imbeciles seriously. Now, they’re talking about getting violent. Violent snowflakes. This is going to go very badly for them. Like I’ve been saying for years, the only plan needed to defeat the left is just sit and watch them self destruct.

      1. “No sane person takes these imbeciles seriously.”

        To repeat a joke I’ve used before – “Ha ha, those silly Russian socialists and their factional fights, now they’ve split into two parties, and the minority party calls itself the majority. Put a fork in them, they’re done!”

      2. They are spoiled children who have no idea actions could ever have consequences. It is like the immigrant activists who are saying they are going to riot is Trump starts to deport people. They honestly think rioting and throwing what amounts to a temper tantrum is going to get them anywhere or have any effect except to make Trump more popular and the public to support even more draconian immigration measures.

        1. Our super-left-wing local SF Bay Area newspaper did an unscientific reader email poll on whether they approved Trump’s travel ban. Those in favor of Trump won 63%-36%, and I don’t think it was because of some email glitch — you actually had to write your reasoning, and possibly be printed in the paper to vote. The paper very quietly posted the results in tiny type on page A-11.

          I don’t think many of the publically-loud social signalers, who think everyone agrees with them in their anti-Trump proclamations, quite recognize that there’s a huge swath of quiet, private folks that are more than OK with a lot of what Trump is doing (perhaps not all he’s doing, but a lot nonetheless).

          I personally am pretty happy with the Supreme Court nominee, for example, and very psyched about DeVos. But I’m also smart enough not to say it around the neighborhood.

      3. You do when they’re calling the shots and running your life!

        Oh, did I mention I live in CA? 🙁

    2. What pains me is that these people get tax dollars ostensibly just to think about shit. They’re supposed to be intelligent, and yet the sociologist in question can’t even distinguish between the amendments in the Bill of Rights. This particular imbecile is probably raking in tax dollars to complete its education:

      “Katherine Cross is a pizza loving feminist sociologist, trans Latina, and amateur slug herder, working on her PhD at the CUNY Graduate Centre. When she’s not studying or gaming she can be found at the Sylvia Rivera Law Project. Her blog can be found at quinnae.com and her writing has also appeared in Women’s Studies Quarterly, Bitch Magazine, Questioning Transphobia, and Kotaku. She is a co-editor of the Border House.”

      The bolded provided me a particularly good laugh.

      It’s time for taxpayers to start taking away their platforms. Because the first amendment is no guarantee that the government fund your ludicrous and hateful speech.

      1. The Kotaku credit is the icing on the cake, really.

    3. Interestingly enough, there wasn’t anywhere near this much speech surrounding the attempted murder of an anti-fascist protester at the University of Washington by one of Milo’s supporters. Apparently, a right-winger trying to shoot someone to death matters less than an anarchist smashing a Starbucks window, but I digress.

      Note that the police themselves thought it was self-defense–the shooter turned himself in–and there is video available of the shootee very deliberately closing in on the shooter from a distance.

      Also note that Reason’s own Rico Suave also misrepresented this same incident, flailing about with a false equivocation of right-wing violence. Not to mention that fucking bash the fash article. Good heavens.

      Facts are racist, sexist, ableist, and don’t get you invited to DC/NY cocktail parties, though.

  32. I really hope Stossel succeeds in bringing up a new generation of reporters like him, because he will be sorely missed.

  33. How not to handle immigration

    ANGELA Merkel may just have pushed through rapid deportation rules as well as a ban on refugees but she is not planning on closing Germany’s doors to migrants forever.

    Just last week the under-fire German Chancellor placed a ban on the families of as many as three million people who arrived in Germany during the migrant crisis joining their relatives.

    The ban, which also applies to women and children and elderly relatives from war torn countries, has been put in place for two years after the country revealed the crisis will cost ?37bn this year.Now just days after the Bundestag voted to speed up deportation and mandatory finger printing, it’s emerged they have outlined the country needs 300,000 people a YEAR for the next 40 years to stop population decline.

    A leaked report from Mrs Merkel’s government said Germany would need to take in 12m migrants over the next four decades to keep Germany’s population size stable?.

    1. she is just going to pretend to do something until she gets re-elected. I don’t think the German public is going to buy it. If they do, they deserve what they get.

    2. The welfare state isn’t going to pay for itself!

      For a libertarian magazine, Reason is pretty slow on connecting the dots between the EU’s border policies and their response to the migrant crisis. The position isn’t driven by principles, but utilitarianism. The brilliant hacks in charge over there think they need the population to fund their entitlements with aging populations. Of course, in reality, it’s another example of piss poor central planning as nothing the Eurocrats do can change the reality that they are importing people who have shown little ability to integrate and become productive members of society. They are unemployed and taking welfare at astronomical rates. They are basically importing a permanent underclass that lives on the dole and will just help drag the system down.

      Europe’s immigration problems/debate may not be fundamentally different (it may actually be – but not relevant to this point), but there is a massive difference in the degree to which the issues will manifest themselves.

      Meanwhile, Merkel hopes to mislead the German public just enough to win reelection and maintain power to long enough to continue to implement this nonsense.

      1. you pretty much beat me to the same points.

      2. Look, just tell me, how many more welfare cases do we have to sign up to get the budget cash-positive?

      3. They’re correct in a way. It’s the Democrats fix to Social Security as well.

        Bring in a bunch more working people who pay payroll taxes, and they’ll cover the retired people currently receiving benefits that there isn’t enough money for. In a vacuum, it does work.

        What they don’t understand, is this is just kicking the can down the road and requires each successive generation to be larger than the last. Not even getting into all the other problems.

        1. What they don’t understand, is this is just kicking the can down the road

          yes, but that doesn’t stop them

          1. They completely understand. That’s why they keep on kicking the can down the road.

            1. Exactly.

              I work in that environment. PERS and similar oversubscribed,public employee defined benefit plans are headed to self destruction as you all know by now. But the CA pols will keep kicking that can because, they plan to be gone before the house of cards collapses.

              Power corrupts.

    3. just days after the Bundestag voted to speed up deportation and mandatory finger printing, it’s emerged they have outlined the country needs 300,000 people a YEAR for the next 40 years to stop population decline.

      duh.

      anyone who didn’t know that the “open-door” immigration policy of the Germans was about their long-term fiscal problem wasn’t paying attention.

      They can’t afford to keep their generous welfare state another 3 decades unless they import ~8m+ young laborers to replace all the ageing Germans who didn’t make enough babies.

      I think its funny that people so often say, “You can’t have a welfare state and open-immigration*”, because the reality is that you can’t really have one without it either (*given that welfare states tend to drift towards ZPG).

      I also think German political leaders completely misunderstand how their welfare state relied on German laborers, not just ‘any’ laborers. They thought mass-immigration would provide a short-term means to delay reforms; instead i think its likely to accelerate serious changes to their entire system of Govt/economy. That includes scrapping the Energiewende, which i think just makes everything worse.

      [*I think the way the argument is applied in the US is different because we don’t really have the same sort of cradle-grave welfare system, and – despite the moanings from the usual suspects here, it doesn’t really on the whole ‘cost’ anything]

      1. On a serious note, I think a lot of people in this debate have been confused over the difference between refugees and immigrants.

        I suspect this could be a taboo subject in some circles, but there are studies that show that Immigrants are generally harder working and more educated than the local populace.

        I believe this to be true. Someone living in their country has a strong drive to better themselves- they’re willing and able to go through the INS process, get a job, go to school, pay for school, get a job and start a family in their new country.

        People displaced by a war aren’t necessarily in that category. They’re essentially the scared wildlife running away from the forest fire.

        I suspect if a study was done, they’d find marked differences between refugees and immigrants– if one categorized them generally the way I do above.

        That doesn’t make the refugees leeches or bad people– or terrorists (which I feel needs to be said). But it might make them a major drain on public resources. They weren’t mentally prepared- or even had the desire to uproot themselves and assimilate.

        In the refugee/Immigrant category, the former are here out of survival, the latter are here out of drive and desire. While some people may think those motivations are similar enough, I don’t think they are. Ultimately, I wonder if a compromise could be made where refugees could be given a kind of temporary status, and then repatriated when… the forest fire is extinguished?

        1. there are studies that show that Immigrants are generally harder working and more educated than the local populace.

          Given the varieties of immigrants and local populaces, there’s probably an accurate study that can show anything you want.

          Ultimately, I wonder if a compromise could be made where refugees could be given a kind of temporary status, and then repatriated when… the forest fire is extinguished?

          If helping refugees was the point, nobody would ever consider paying for some of them to live in the first world.

        2. I think a lot of people in this debate have been confused over the difference between refugees and immigrants.

          yes, i know, apathiest belabored the distinction a while ago.

          there are studies that show that Immigrants are generally harder working and more educated than the local populace

          I’ve read some of them. the mostly reflect American data on immigration, which isn’t necessarily characteristic of the way it works in the rest of the world.

          People displaced by a war aren’t necessarily in that category. …That doesn’t make the refugees leeches or bad people– or terrorists (which I feel needs to be said). But it might make them a major drain on public resources.

          Exactly so. it also makes them less likely to assimilate since they’re not ‘migrating’ because of any personal economic/social aspirations, so much as fleeing home countries (which they’re have preferred not to) because of violence.

          wonder if a compromise could be made where refugees could be given… temporary status, and then repatriated

          Other countries have done this with varying levels of success/failure. the danger is creating a intermediate class of non-citizen which may be temporary for individuals so-classified, but which becomes a permanent feature of that country because of constant traffic people taking advantage of that half-assed status and its benefits.

          1. the likely outcome of all of the above is a “Ghettoization” of the European Arab migrant community. Basically, cloistered populations which mostly feed off of one another, but never really tries to adapt to the home country law/culture/society.

            basically, very very unlikely to ever help ameliorate Germany’s (or anyone else’s) long term fiscal entitlements problem.

            1. the likely outcome of all of the above is a “Ghettoization” of the European Arab migrant community. Basically, cloistered populations which mostly feed off of one another, but never really tries to adapt to the home country law/culture/society.

              So..the status quo?

              1. Exactly. I’m trying to find some sort of compromise position that treats refugees and immigrants in a different manner from a policy perspective.

                Immigrants do better because they ostensibly came to exist in that country. Refugees are there because they have nowhere else to go.

              2. I guess. I am unfamiliar with how assimilated (or not) non-germans are already, compared to say, arabs in France, or Pakistanis in UK, etc.

                1. sorry – that was a reply to HM’s “status quo” remark

      2. The weird part of this is, Germany tried that very approach in the 1970s with importing Turkish and other nationals from that part of the world as labor. They were balkanized and the Germans ended up with a microcosm of the very problems they are experiencing now.

        You think they would have learned.

  34. file under: useful idiots

    A professor at Georgetown University is teaching his students that men do not need consent to have sex with women, and that slavery is justifiable under Islamic teachings.

    Brown defended slavery, stating, “It’s not immoral for one human to own another human” by comparing it to marriage?a quid pro quo arrangement in which both slave and master benefited from the arrangement.

    “I don’t think it’s morally evil to own somebody because we own lots of people all around us and we’re owned by people,” said Brown.

    A female attendee asked Brown about the permissibility of sex with slaves, to which the professor stated that “Consent isn’t necessary for lawful sex,” and defined consent as a Western concept that emerged with women’s suffrage and female body autonomy. Brown, he said, believes that marital rape was an invalid concept in Islam.

    1. …and the left continues to view them as oppressed. It amazing how they square that circle in what passes for their minds.

      1. To be fair, John Wright has also argued that martial rape is an invalid concept in the West too.

        1. Meant for derp, not BP.

    2. In general you don’t find the brutality that you see in American slavery,” said Brown, who described the historically common practice as “investments” and “walking venture properties” for slave-owners.

      Some historians estimate that between A.D. 650 and 1900, 10 to 20 million people were enslaved by Arab slave traders. Others believe over 20 million enslaved Africans alone had been delivered through the trans-Sahara route alone to the Islamic world.

      Dr. John Alembellah Azumah in his 2001 book, The Legacy of Arab-Islam in Africa estimates that over 80 million Black people more died en route.

      The Arab slave trade typically dealt in the sale of castrated male slaves. Black boys between the age of 8 and 12 had their scrotums and penises completely amputated to prevent them from reproducing. About six of every 10 boys bled to death during the procedure, according to some sources, but the high price brought by eunuchs on the market made the practice profitable.

      Some men were castrated to be eunuchs in domestic service and the practice of neutering male slaves was not limited to only Black males. “The calipha in Baghdad at the beginning of the 10th Century had 7,000 black eunuchs and 4,000 white eunuchs in his palace,” writes author Ronald Segal in his 2002 book, Islam’s Black Slaves: The Other Black Diaspora.

      http://atlantablackstar.com/20…..n-schools/

      1. The eastern Arab slave trade dealt primarily with African women, maintaining a ratio of two women for each man. These women and young girls were used by Arabs and other Asians as concubines and menials.

        A Muslim slaveholder was entitled by law to the sexual enjoyment of his slave women. Filling the harems of wealthy Arabs, African women bore them a host of children.

        This abuse of African women would continue for nearly 1, 200 years.

        The incredible brutality of the Arab slave trade even compared to the Western one is well known. How could this asshole be this willfully ignorant and think “hey life as an Islamic slave wasn’t so bad”?

        1. The bullshit taught in schools is that America had ‘chattel’ slavery. It was a slave society which is oh so worse than supposedly smaller scale slavery elsewhere where slaves were, again, supposedly restricted to elites as a sign of their status. They were domestic help and part of the family etc.

          1. “domestic help and part of the family”

            No defender of Southern slavery ever used *that* line.

            1. It’s kind of interesting how we tend to avoid the whole ‘slavery is an unjustifiable evil’ argument nowadays and roll with ‘yeah, slavery was a bad idea, and we shouldn’t do it today, but come on, it wasn’t that bad being a slave in *insert society here*’

              1. Eh, I think it’s more that everyone in the modern West agrees that it was an unjustifiable evil. There is value in comparing the institution across cultures, across time periods. It’s not defending slavery to point out that there are huge differences in how slaves were treated in different cultures.

                1. Brown trying to justify slavery in Islamic societies or use of terms like ‘part of the family’ is not exactly framing slavery as unjustifiable evil.

      2. In general you don’t find the brutality that you see in American slavery,” said Brown, who described the historically common practice as “investments” and “walking venture properties” for slave-owners.

        If that’s true, then there would be large populations of blacks in Islamic nations who’s ancestors were slaves. But of course, that’s not true.

      3. The white eunuchs were sold to the Vienna Boy’s choir.

      4. Castration is not brutality?

        Then why am I clutching my balls right now?

    3. “The Islamic Studies professor said that in Muslim societies, “slavery wasn’t racialized,” unlike the United States. Lee points out that this is untrue, given that in the Arab world, black people are referred to as “abeed,” the Arab word for “slave.””

      Oops.

      Georgetown got in trouble recently because, early in the 19th century, the local Jesuits sold off their slaves and shared the profits with Georgetown.

      Let me see if this new scandal is going to go anywhere.

      1. Also, kaffir didn’t come to mean black people in Africa because the slave trade wasn’t racialized.

      2. From 2010

        “…according to Brown, Georgetown is an ideal place for dialogue about the gap between the truth about Islam and the way it is perceived to begin.”

    4. ..”Consent isn’t necessary for lawful sex,”….

      Elite member of the oppressive patriarchy uses his whiteness to exercise cis-heterosexual priveledge.

      Am I doing inter sectional progressiveness correctly?

    5. Is that professor a practicing Muslim? he doesn’t really appear the part.

      1. I’m not sure, but

        Jonathan Brown is the Alwaleed bin Talal Chair of Islamic Civilization in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, and he is the Director of the Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim Christian Understanding.”

        1. I got that he was a “Big Fan”, just curious if he’d taken the Shahada

    6. Man, some of these Gor fans really take it too far into the real world….

  35. Everyday Feminism: No, Trans Women Are NOT ‘Biologically Male’

    “Yes, trans women are women, but they’re still biologically male.”

    Ever thought or said something like this? You might even have good intentions by stating what you think is a simple fact ? after all, gender is a social construct, while sex is biological, right?

    Actually, this “simple fact” of trans women being “biologically male” is inaccurate ? and this misrepresentation of the truth is being used to justify some pretty hateful things.

    1. Was that transplaining?

    2. Are they adhering to the old definition of trans? A man that went through surgery and hormone treatment, and became a woman? Or the new definition: someone who just declared?

      1. And by the way, if they are adhering to the old definition, and it’s really true (or they believe) that there’s no biological difference, then why do they insist on calling them “trans women”. Wouldn’t they just be “women”?

  36. Are we scaring ourselves to death?!

    I’d just become a libertarian when I happened to catch that special by random chance. I’d already become disheartened by mainstream political discourse, so it was amazing to see something like that on one of the major networks.

    1. The media was in overtime mode trying to scare everyone into supporting the crime bill and gun control. Local media would spend 15 minutes a day reporting every shooting from around the country instead of local news. National media was even worse. That show aired immediately after the crime bill passed. Ok, we got what we wanted, now everyone can calm down. Things aren’t as bad as what we’ve led you to believe in order to get what we want. I hate the media.

    1. I thought like 80-90% of California’s water-problems were just politically-created mismanagement, not anything to do with “not enough H20”

      i vaguely recall stories about hundreds of millions of gallons being dumped in the ocean because of “smelt protections”, and shitty management of rainwater runoff.

      1. Water shaming was one of the LA Times main features last year. They’d send reporters to peek into celebrities’ yards to see who was overwatering their lawns. They actually advertised based on it.

        They are so butthurt right now.

        That reservoir is full (overflowing, actually) for the first time in its 46 year history. The LA Times is going to write about it, and I guarantee you that they’ll devote at least a paragraph to “experts” pushing conservation.

        1. Would it be fair to say that the California “water crisis” is actually a problem created by “shitty political mis-management” which has been used to justify “MORE shitty political interventions”?

          That’s always seemed to me the particular innovation of West Coast liberals = the use of their own failures as justification for giving them MORE money and power. Because the problem isn’t their methods – its that they don’t have enough money or Toppest People to impose the *correct* top-down controls

          1. Yes. They prefer to manage in a perpetual state of crisis. They have much more control that way.

            Our population has doubled in the last 30 years, and our water infrastructure has stayed the same.

            Our response to that is to build a $100 billion train to nowhere.

            1. Our response to that is to build a $100 billion train to nowhere.

              Its a long-term investment into Future Money-Sucking Crises

              1. Never let a good crisis go to waste.

          2. The assholes in Sacramento are actually upset at sights like
            this and this.

            Both taken this morning. And yes, they had to dig a channel in the snow 25 feet deep for the gondola.

          3. GILMORE?|2.11.17 @ 12:48PM|#
            “Would it be fair to say that the California “water crisis” is actually a problem created by “shitty political mis-management” which has been used to justify “MORE shitty political interventions”?”

            Moonbeam was governor in the late ’70s; the last really serious drought. He campaigned ‘getting by with less’, drove a ’67 Plymouth, and I swear, represents the entire CA market for hair shirts.
            Since then, he has had various governmental positions and has never been away from the ‘levers of power’. The CA population has doubled. The CA state government has build exactly ZERO new water storage facilities of any sort at all,
            So you’d be excused from thinking the CA state government more or less *designed* our most recent ‘drought crisis’. And they seem none too please with having to admit that the drought is NOT the ‘new normal’ as a result of ‘climate change’.

            1. Hey. You’re talking about a man who would be Pope there. Watch your tongue.

              If it wasn’t for that warbler Rondstadt, Jerry would have achieved his goals.

          4. Californian here.

            GILMORE nails it!

    2. You’re in a climate change drought. Not a drought-drought. What that means is California’s long term trend is less rain and… drought… just because some weather event last friday did something for the first time in history doesn’t change the thesis.

      Now, had the Oroville watchamacallit been the lowest level of water in history– then that would be proof of climate change.

      It’s like you don’t even Jerry Brown.

  37. So, since the topic of feral snowflakes came up, I found this a little while ago. Makes a fascinating read.

    https://status451.com/2017/01/20/days-of-rage/

    Bonus amusement: Actual commies and actual fascists chucking poop at each other in the comments.

    1. Logical next step for Melville: emulate them. Specifically, find an explosives warehouse, steal dynamite, start a bombing campaign against United Fruit. Except United Fruit had moved their warehouse, so he bombed a tugboat company instead. Whoops.

      The tugboat holds the chains of the working cargo ships! They are the indolent wage slaves that drive the workers to despair! Only through the liberation of the cargo ships and the overthrowing of the naval-industrial complex will the true Boaters’ Paradise come!

      1. CSNY approve. Maybe it’s CSN.

    2. “Bonus amusement: Actual commies and actual fascists chucking poop at each other in the comments”

      So it’s like WaPo, you say?

    3. As commies, Weatherman is into in fomenting revolt among the working class. Their problem, they keep discovering, is that working class wants to beat the shit out of them.

      They never seem to get it. Its because they learn all their ideas in @#*(&@ college seminars, not actually working alongside the ‘working poor’.

    4. Thing is, back then, the ‘revolutionaries’ were able to find plenty of leftist utopia dreamers who actually had the balls to carry out violent attacks like this. Now, what do they have? The snowflakes? They’ll be hiding in their mum’s basement. BLM? Yeah, they’re good for an occasional block a highway and set something on fire, smash a few windows. But their attention span only lasts until the next EBT refill.

      The left in this country are in no way prepared to stage a revolution. We’re not going to see that. They’re going to some rally’s where they make fools of themselves and become the subject of lots of parodies. But that’s about it. Only the Islamic jihadists have the fortitude for real violence. The left are done. There cannot be a true leftist utopia without violence. And the left have turned their followers into emasculated pajama boys. Game over.

      1. you’re correct that the modern left is WAY too focused on “virtual activism” to ever actually engage in any coordinated ‘direct action’ like the 1970s left.

        Basically, they are too-busy social-signalling to “do stuff”. And when they DO ‘do stuff’, its so they can distribute video clips on youtube and further the social-signaling agenda.

        (i find nothing so absurd as the way modern kids will huddle in a crowd and point smart-phone cameras at one another and “perform” their Activism, hoping to capture either a good quip of their own, or the ineptness of the oppositions)

        But there will be more violence, because the left has basically made reasoned-debate their enemy.

        and they will mostly lose. And there will be much hand-wringing about Fascism, because most people in America are sick of their shit and won’t mind when a bunch of Alt-Righties finally starts kicking their asses in public on occasion.

        and Reason will of course go further left in the process.

        Libertarians actually have real opportunity in the near future, in my opinion, of being an attractive source of “coherent ideas” in a popular pushback against the left. but they [Reason, the LP, etc] will screw it up because they don’t have good answers to the alt-rights “anti-Globalism” incoherent mush. Or at least they dont’ realize why their answers aren’t at all appealing.

        1. I don’t exactly want to interrupt the enemy when they’re making a mistake, but I honestly don’t know why some sort of “social signal by sharing a picture of yourself outside a polling place” thing hasn’t been aggressively pushed.

          I made a note of all the people I personally know who decided to smoke weed, drink, and play games on election day instead of voting, who afterwards won’t stop shrieking, instead of, you know, voting and then smoking weed, drinking and playing games. I guess it isn’t as visible and showoffish as participating in a protest (or violent riot, hyuk hyuk), but they certainly seem to be able to find the time to repost articles nonstop from ThinkProgress about Drumpfler and Bannon and how DeVos is the end of civilization.

          (Also, after voting, I had had absolutely fucking enough of politics and was trying to relax playing cards with friends, when one friend’s roommate comes in, literally misty-eyed, about Trump and the Republicans’ impending victory. She proceeds to call him a Nazi right off the bat, and then looks around and honestly asks if anyone voted for him or knows people who voted for him. I laugh internally and drink more Victory at Sea in silence. She didn’t actually bother to vote, of course.)

          1. They were all too busy sharing Get Out The Vote memes to actually vote.

          2. IIRC, a majority of those arrested for rioting in Portland in the days after the election had apparently not voted either.

          3. IIRC, a majority of those arrested for rioting in Portland in the days after the election had apparently not voted either.

    5. I think Robby should do a review of the “Days of Rage” book, just for the lulz

      (and read that article. it would add such spice to his equivocations)

    6. The author of that is a good Twitter follow.

  38. You can read at seven times the speed you can listen.

    Reason podcasters and video producers please take note.

    1. true, but i think its possible they get a larger (or more diverse) audience w/ video or audio over time.

      its a trade-off

      1. There is that.

      2. Yeah, I’d vastly prefer to read than try and make the time to sit through movie-length video essays, but it’s obvious that there’s an audience for that sort of thing.

      3. It’s hard to read a discussion.

    1. Yep. Dealing with that site was *horrible*.

    1. Nick Gillespie assured us the number was zero, you goddamn Trump lover!

      1. Apparently Nick is in the pocket of Big Ninth Circuit.

    2. I’m not sure that the # of people prosecuted for terror over a period of 15 years across 7 countries is necessarily better evidence (or different) than what they’d already submitted for their argument – which is that the previous administration’s State Dept had already flagged these 7 countries as “areas of concern”

      n February of 2016, the Obama Administration added Libya, Yemen, and Somalia to a list of “countries of concern,” which placed some restrictions on Visa Waiver Program travel on those who had visited the countries after March 1, 2011. …. Iran, Syria, Iraq and Sudan were already on the list from the administration’s original law in 2015.

      this list came into effect in December 2015 under the name of the “Terrorist Travel Prevention Act

      You’d think that if there were already substantial enough evidence to compel the state dept and congress to act on these specific countries, then the courts wouldn’t need any particular new or special evidence provided to them to justify why the executive had authority to act on the exact same basis.

      1. Yeah, but Obama and the Congressional Democrats were motivated by a sincere concern about terrorism when they designated these seven countries, whereas Trump doesn’t care about terrorism, he just hates Muslims so his selection of these 7 countries is wrong.

  39. Because I have an ongoing fascination with the impending death of Sears:

    Reuters: Sears, Kmart drop 31 Trump Home items from their online shops

    What they’re clearly hoping for from this announcement: “Hey, Sears is cool after all! Let’s all buy our stuff there now!”

    Since every a lot of other big retailers are going this route, and since Sears is in death’s waiting room, why not swim against the grain? Maybe Trumpkins and others will appreciate the contrarian stance and give them business.

    I mean, probably not, but they gotta try something.

    1. Sears was the Amazon of the era from about 1890 through the 1970s. It was a good run.

    2. Sears was the Amazon of the era from about 1890 through the 1970s. It was a good run.

      1. My order for Squirrel food just arrived.

        1. It was old man Roebuck what was fond o’ them critters.

          1. I remember back in those days when my mum would say ‘We just got the new Sears and Roebuck catalog’ with much excitement. I would cringe because I knew I was getting clothes from there, again. It was Sears and the Montgomery Ward catalog. They were the big 2 mail order catalogs back then was like the intertoobz. I just wanted to check the milfs in the under garment section.

            1. So true!

    3. Before toilet paper became commonplace, people used to wipe their ass with the Sears catalogue.

    4. Anybody else masturbate to the Sears and Service Merchandise catalogs?

      1. It was Craftsman tools that did it for me.

      2. I thought that all 12 year old boys did that in the 70s? Milfs in girdles!

      3. Until my father discreetly gave me a Penthouse

        1. When I was 11 or 12 I found a box full of old Penthouses and Hustlers in the woods. Still a top 15 day of my life.

          1. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

    5. Back about 5 years before they closed the closest Sears store to us, the wife and I really enjoyed going in there because there were no other people there. We would go in there at 5PM on a Saturday and were literally the only people in this Walmart size Sears store. We sort of marveled at the fact that they could keep this store open for years with no customers. It closed about 2 year ago. It was a sad day and we observed a moment of silence.

      1. I picked up an excellent bocce set on the cheap from a similar Sears going tits up.

  40. File under “rent control, gaming”.
    Woman was granted a lifetime fixed rent since she was pretty damn old at the time, but in order to keep it, she had to maintain residence.

    “100-year-old woman evicted from SF home”
    […]
    “Canada was not in the building when the notice was posted, and her lawyer said neither he nor Canada’s family has broken the news to her.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/…..924591.php

    Why is she not there, you ask? Well, according to earlier articles, she’s been living with her daughter in Oakland and the daughter has been sub-letting the unit as an Air BnB rental.

  41. Regarding the story above, here is the text for Jonathan Brown’s Islam-and-slavery speech, which is supposed to be 1 of 3.

    1. “We usually think of slavery as something that exists in a dichotomy with freedom. But what does freedom mean?”

      1. Nothing left to lose?

          1. I was thinking more Kris Kristofferson and Bobby Mcgee, but free bird works. I have never seen that movie. Might need to look it up.

            1. It’s a sequel to House of 1000 Corpses

        1. Yes but, it’s free.

      2. “In conversations and debates the response, ‘Well, does that mean slavery would be ok?’ is the ultimate trump card against someone arguing for indulging different values. Slavery is the ideal example to invoke because its evil is so morally clear and so widely acknowledged. Who would defend slavery? It is the Hitler of human practices. Yet despite all its power, the word slavery is rarely defined. In that sense, it is much like the word terrorism ? its power lies in the assumptions behind its meaning and the moral condemnation it carries. But it is very poorly defined.”

        1. “Ultimately, the word ‘slavery’ can mean so many things that it’s not very useful for accurate communication. It often ends up referring to things we don’t mean when we think of slavery, or it fails to match things we do associate with slavery. As such, the word slavery has limited use as a category or conceptual tool. It’s much more useful to talk about the extreme exploitation of human beings’ labor and the extreme deprivation of their rights. In any society, whether it has ‘slavery’ or not, we are likely to find such conditions. Instead of fixating on a word or ill-defined category, it is much more useful to focus on regulating conditions and protecting people’s rights in order to prevent such extreme debasement. And, as our next essay will show, this is precisely what the Shariah aimed to do.”

          1. The question and answer period starts at 51:25 here.

            1. Around 59:30 – You can’t talk about Islamic slavery until you realize that “there is no such thing as slavery” considered as a concept existing across time and space.

              1. Shortly after this: “exporting our sin” – taking Western sins and using it to make Muslim slavery look bad. Rarely racialized, slaves had a regime of rights, some were administrative elites

                1. economic phenomenon (the West) vs. social phenomenon (Islam)

                  1. After 1:02, Mohammad owned slaves, are you (questioner) more moral than the prophet of God?

                    1. 1:05:52 – Don’t “morally fetishize” the word “slavery,” focus on working conditions

                    2. Circa 1:10 – you can’t free slaves so enthusiastically as to cheat your heirs.

                    3. circa 1:13 – slavery isn’t a moral evil in and of itself – not in itself wrong to own people because there’s all sorts of ownership

                    4. I’m glad you are narrating. I only made it through a few minutes. That guy is a grade A asshat.

                      Mohammad owned slaves, are you (questioner) more moral than the prophet of God?

                      Apparently I am. Who knew.

                    5. 1:17 Little in the Koran about slavery – encourages manumission to expiate certain sins and crimes – most of Islamic law is based on adoption of pre-Islamic concepts, but Islamic law made things better for slaves in some regards. The reality of slavery wasn’t that different from the Islamic legal ideal, not as brutal as American slavery. Since slavery was an investment, you treated them well, like income-generating rental properties.

                      Concubines – It’s hard to have this discussion because the sina qua non of morally correct sex in the U.S. is consent. We’re considered autonomous agents, so consent is essential under U.S. concepts. These nonconsensual acts with concubines are wrong by Western standards since they don’t have consent. But for most of human history, human beings haven’t thought of consent as the central feature of morally correct sexual activity. We fetishize autonomy until we forget what autonomy *really* means? We’re all born into a network of responsibilities, relationships and duties. A concubine’s autonomy wasn’t that different from the autonomy of a wife. Marriage was arranged by others. What’s the difference between a woman captured in a raid and sold to an owner, bears him children, etc., and a poor baker’s daughter who marries a baker’s son? Not a big difference between the two situations because of our obsession with consent.

                    6. Of course, technically under Islamic law the consent of the woman is required, but in reality what does a woman’s consent to a marriage mean if she’s marrying the man her parents want?

                    7. The presenter introduced Jonathan Brown’s speech by saying he (Brown) was a convert to Islam.

      3. Anal with your student’s mother?

    1. Teaser:

      I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

      This is from 2003.

      1. That was a classic. He released State of Fear not long after that.

      2. In my government work, we have technical advisory committees tasked with providing a tech review of proposals and making recommendations.

        Guess what? We have discussions but never take a poll or vote for approval. Instead, the responsible agency reports out of committee and says “we have consensus”. If a dissenter is really lucky, the report may note their dissent.

  42. The Georgetown prof had this guy kicked out of the slavery lecture.

    It seems that the prof is not only a Muslim convert but also the son in law of Sami Al-Arian, a well-known, uh, sympathizer with militants who sympathizing led to his conviction and deportation from the U.S.

  43. The Georgetown prof had this guy kicked out of the slavery lecture.

    It seems that the prof is not only a Muslim convert but also the son in law of Sami Al-Arian, a well-known, uh, sympathizer with militants who sympathizing led to his conviction and deportation from the U.S.

  44. And you know how Georgetown University wants to make reparations for its past complicity with slavery?

    One of the recommendations in the report of the Working Group on Slavery, Memory, and Reconciliation is as follows (pp. 44-45):

    “Create an Institute for the Study of Slavery and its Legacies at Georgetown to coordinate scholarly research, curricular development, and public programs about the history of slavery and its legacies at Georgetown, in Washington, D.C., and its surroundings, and in Catholic America…

    “Foster dialogue across departments and centers to address contemporary issues related to the history of slavery, such as our nation’s system of mass incarceration, unlawful discrimination, unfair housing, unemployment, workers’ rights, especially on campus, and health disparities, to name a few.”

    1. I suppose they left out the part about hiring a slavery apologist who says

      (a) there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with slavery as long as the right Top Masters are in charge,

      (b) what does slavery really *mean,* anyway? and

      (c) and, really, what’s wrong with going out and capturing a concubine for yourself – you Westerners have such a fetish for consent!

    2. They want to make reparations by social signaling. I see.

      I suspect the response from those wanting reparations will go something like this: “We don’t give a fuck about that. Pay us.”

      1. The Jesuits sold off a bunch of slaves in 1838 and Georgetown got a lot of the money (all?).

        Now they’re offering to treat the descendants of these slaves like the descendants of alumni – that is, they get special admissions consideration.

        If they hadn’t ladled out several thick servings of SJW bullshit at the same time, that might actually have been a good idea.

        1. But at the very least, if you’re making a point of apologizing for past complicity in slavery, you really should expect your employees not to endorse slavery.

          1. The 5 % of my genes that are Neanderthal are the results of my Cro-Magnon ancestors brutally RAPING my Neanderthal ancestors!!! … So I expect my compensation check in the mail now, in the next few days, from all of ye oppressive Cro-Magnon bastards!!!! (‘Cause my expert past-lives regression hypnotists PROVE, beyond a reasonable doubt, that my spirit spent a LOT more lives, as an abused Neanderthal, than YE bunch of insensitive RAPISTS!!!)

            1. Wait. How do you know that it wasn’t Neanderthals raping Cro-Magnons?

              Such information is not carried on genes. Only the results.

        2. Oh, I got your point. Someone needs to put a few knots on that crazy bastard’s head then put him out on his ass.

          I was only remarking about the reparations crowd as a side issue. Georgetown doesnt want to pay but the people wanting reparations really only want money. Win for Georgetown…they get to show everyone what good SJWs they are and still keep their money.

          1. When the call for reparations gets into generic racial-justice territory, then it’s basically a shakedown.

            Lincoln suggested that drops of blood drawn by the lash would, via the Civil War, be repaid by drops of blood drawn by the sword. If that doesn’t go into the reparations calculus I’m not sure what would.

            When it gets to the point of whitey being evil so pay up, then it’s not real reparations, but a racket. And of course, what about people like Obama, are they to be taxed on behalf of their white ancestors and then given the money back on behalf of their black ancestors? But then, his ancestors (at least on his dad’s side) weren’t slaves in America. And what about the Sons of Union Veterans? Etc.

            It would be one thing if Georgetown was stick with “we profited off the sale of your great-great-great-grandaddy whose family got split up and he got sent to the slave market in New Orleans the year before the Papacy issued yet another decree calling into question the trafficking in African slaves. So since you’re part of the Georgetown family (involuntarily) we’ll treat you as such with an alumni preference.”

            But to say “whee, this gives us a chance to discharge generic White Guilt to justify what we would want to do anyway,” then I question it.

            Especially since their employment of this Brown guy shows that maybe they’re not as antislavery as they say…

            1. Obama pays half a reparation but gets nothing since he has no slave ancestry. Sons of Union Veterans get paid for their ancestor’s service. Good gauge would be at least $10 million each (that’s what a jury awarded the descendants of a 75 year old woman killed in a Phila. building collapse.}

              1. What do the descendants of Smith Atkins get, considering that he married a Southern belle in the town he was occupying?

                Do the descendants lose points for that?

  45. Hey, did anyone notice this?

    “Well, a show I did on Charles Murray’s The Bell Curve [which controversially asserts that different races have different average IQs] ended up never running. And Murray at the end of it said, “You know, it’s just as well because this information makes no one happy.””

    So for lack of being allowed to consider this hypothesis… And others, that it might be due to racial differences in the rates of breast feeding… The ***ONLY*** permissible hypothesis for the academic under-performance of certain races, is “Mighty Whitey” is keeping them down! Despite the successes of, for example, disadvantaged Vietnamese immigrants! …. The fights go on and on and on, due to our lack of honesty… There is ALWAYS a price to be paid for putting our heads in the sand! … Not that I think that IQ is the end-all and be-all. I would ***MUCH*** prefer a boss or a neighbor who is mentally on the dull side, but is a decent and loving humanoid, than vice versa!!!!

    1. [which controversially asserts that different races have different average IQs]

      How is that controversial?

      And others, that it might be due to racial differences in the rates of breast feeding… The ***ONLY*** permissible hypothesis

      That’s a fairly well-studied hypothesis.

      1. Different cultures have different average IQs. That is a very different thing.

        1. Different from what? What do you think the differences are due to? What is the proper “fix”, if a “fix” is needed in the first place?

          1. Different cultures are a very different than different races.

            Some cultures are dumber than dogshit, others not so much. Race has nothing to do with it.

            1. Black *culture* is dumber than dogshit. Not the people mind you. I’m not some kind of racist.

              1. There is no such thing as black culture. Blacks from Peru, blacks from Haiti, blacks from inner city America, blacks from rural England, from where ever, are as different as the variety of white cultures around the world are from each other.

                Hell, I can tell the difference in the blacks here from one side of the river to the other.

                1. Thousands of black cultures range from dogshit to dumber than dogshit. Doesn’t have anything to do with race though. That’d be racist.

                  1. There is no such thing as black culture.

                    You ignored Suthenboy’s point.

                    1. nope

                    2. Do you intend to explain?

                    3. don’t know what needs ‘splainin

                    4. Hi Charles E.,

                      I think Sidd Vicious-Finch just DID explain to you… He really actually IS a racist! Not to start or enjoy commentary wars, but there it is, for what it’s worth…

                      Yes, to SuthenBoy’s points? The black American General from Gulf War #1 days…Colin Powel… He was of the Caribbean-Black culture, not of the USA-black culture (which in turn can be sub-divided into those who respect education, and those who don’t, and sub-divided in other ways as well). But in general, Colin Powel (along with many others born in the Caribbeans, not USA) was a success, ’cause he was brought up, ***NOT*** being told, all day every day, that he couldn’t succeed, ’cause Mighty Whitey was keepin’ him DOWN!!!!

        2. wut

        3. There’s a joke. Why are so many doctors Jewish?

          Because there mothers are.

          There’s a lot of truth to that. And Asian parents seem the same way.

        4. And cultures come out of nowhere. Because evolution isn’t real.

          1. If culture had anything to do with genes, guidos in staten island would be building aquaducts and writing operas.

            1. They’re not?

              1. Perhaps my own, inferior anglo-saxon heritage leaves me unable to appreciate the deeper significance of their contributions to contemporary culture.

      2. “How is that controversial?”

        Drop the most utterly vague suggestion that it MIGHT be possible, on American college campuses today, and prepare to be promptly tarred and feathered, if not worse, by today’s mind-control fascists! (SJWs who merely PRETEND to actually care, as would be demonstrated by doing actual WORK to empower and uplift the poor).

        “The Bell Cure” (I read every word of it years ago) had a whole chapter and maybe more, devoted to how the eggheads (especially lawyers and regulators) will use their smarts (IQ) to devise endless forms and procedures (complex regulations) to follow, and throw them out as roadblocks in the path of the poor… And then PUNISH those who cannot or will not fill out ten million forms, before trying to help themselves!!! “Oh, here, you poor, ignorant slob, let me HELP you fill out those forms, on how to pay taxes on selling individual cigarettes on the streets, and pay exorbitant taxes, so that the police won’t strangle you for your CRIME!” … “I can’t breath!”… Mighty Whitey don’t care, as he condemns “The Bell Curve”, while offering to HELP the poor navigate ten million FORMS, in order to compete! Parasitical, hypocritical lawyers and regulators!!! Using their smarts to oppress the poor, and then cuss and swear at the authors of “The Bell Curve”, who DARED to point this out!

        1. IE, “What’s wrong with you, WHY can you NOT find the smarts to fill out my 32-page application for paying taxes for selling piece-part cigarettes, BOY??! (For a “small” fee from the taxpayers, I can HELP you fill out those forms that me & my “smart” buddies have invented, to PROTECT THE CHILDREN. Meanwhile, if’n ye do not COMPLY, expect to be strangled by your helpful local law enforcement.) See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Eric_Garner

        2. Drop the most utterly vague suggestion that it MIGHT be possible, on American college campuses today, and prepare to be promptly tarred and feathered, if not worse, by today’s mind-control fascists!

          Not really. M&H got in trouble for not saying the cause is 100% environmental.

          “The Bell Cure” (I read every word of it years ago) had a whole chapter and maybe more, devoted to how the eggheads (especially lawyers and regulators) will use their smarts (IQ) to devise endless forms and procedures (complex regulations) to follow, and throw them out as roadblocks in the path of the poor

          This has been a conservative theme for some time. Progressives simultaneously believe that intelligence isn’t real and anybody can do anything, and also that smartasses from HYPS need to tell everyone else what to do.

      3. “How is that controversial?”

        Because it reeks of eugenics.

        Incidentally, the book claimed that there were both genetic and environmental factors that shape IQ and that the relative importance of each was still very much open to question.

        The book was smeared at the time, and a bunch of Nazis jumped behind it–because all the things it supposedly said according to the press. It was another instance of the shithead press and their self-fulfilling prophecies.

        Tell everybody that keeping people from countries that are rife with anti-American terrorism is all about religious discrimination, and, soon enough, everybody that hates Muslims will jump behind the policy specifically for that reason.

        1. it reeks of eugenics … a bunch of Nazis

          Get a grip.

          1. That’s the correct answer.

            It was controversial because it reeked of eugenics . . . in people’s minds.

            It was a lightening rod in the press. They discussed it as if it were a new rebirth of eugenics.

            Here they are talking about it on Donahue back in the day.

            http://tinyurl.com/zd9edz2

          2. Here’s the New York Times, at the time, tying these ideas to eugenics and the Nazis.

            http://tinyurl.com/jhut72f

            Here’s Slate doing the same thing:

            http://tinyurl.com/hxwejgl

            1. from the first link:

              but they insist that even when due allowance is made in terms of statistical comparisons of all other factors and measuring their relative weights, intelligence still seems to be strongly influenced by the genes of one’s forebears.

              this is KMW:

              [which controversially asserts that different races have different average IQs]

              See the difference? If M&H had said that there’s a black-white IQ gap and it’s caused by wealth inequality and giving billions of dollars to nice white ladies to teach early childhood education will fix this up no probs, there wouldn’t have been an issue.

              1. You’re talking about whether their argument is really pro-Nazi eugenics?

                I’m not.

                I’m answering the question, “How is that controversial?”, and the correct answer is that it was controversial because in people’s minds it reeked of eugenics.

                Whether they thought that properly or improperly is beside the point. The question is whether people thought that it reeked of eugenics, and the answer is “yes”.

                1. You’re talking about whether their argument is really pro-Nazi eugenics?

                  No. I’m arguing that KMW’s bracketed statement — [which controversially asserts that different races have different average IQs] — is wrong. Outside of the NYRB class, racial IQ gaps per se weren’t very controversial. The controversy, such as I remember it, was that they said the conventional environmental explanation wasn’t sufficient to explain the gap.

            2. “Nowhere do they advocate the measures championed by the eugenicists of the 1920’s and 1930’s, whose ideas were appropriated and perverted by the Nazis as the rationale for the Holocaust. Indeed, the authors of “The Bell Curve” say that the granting to any government or social institution of the power to decide who may breed and who may not is fraught with such obvious dangers as to be unacceptable.

              Still, one suspects that the authors of these three books may have softened their agendas somewhat to parry the expected fury of liberal critics, fellow academics and hostile mobs. Given their conclusions about intellect and demographics, it is hard to believe that these writers would oppose a eugenically motivated program designed to influence patterns of reproduction.”

              —-New York Times

              That’s much kinder than other summaries I’ve seen–and it’s still damning it as eugenics.

      4. You can’t just have facts. You have to be ready with causation, even if it is only your own conjecture.

  46. Stossel was, for me, a voice in the wilderness for many years. Shine on you crazy diamond.

    1. “Shine on you crazy diamond.” … Yeah man, gotcha…

      Progs responding to John S.: “You wore out your welcome, with random precision!”

      We don’t want to hear ya, nah-blah-nah-blah-de-blah!!!

      John S. presents “60 minutes” worth of logical, carefully reasoned data on WHY (for the common good, even) we should be logical, and results-driven, rather than feelings-driven; read, self-righteousness, SJW-driven…

      Babba-Wawwa responds, “But what about the heart-meltingly CUTE BABY SEALS?!??! Don’t you know, if’n ya don’t recycle ALL of yer used toilet paper, ALL of the Baby Seals will DIE?!?! AGONIZING DEATHS, AT THAT!??!!”

      1. If the baby seals all die, what am I supposed to club to death?

  47. I’m not wading through the 300+ posts since I left this morning. What are we talking about?
    Also, you guys can’t see it, but I’m doing “jazz hands”.

    1. I can see you

      1. Prove it: how many fingers am I holding up?

        1. One
          Right hand
          Middle

          (We can all see you)

          1. * hastily puts on pants*

    2. As near as I can tell, apparently Jabba the Hutt was a muslim and thus it was okay for him to enslave Princess Leia

      1. I’m pretty sure it was OK for anybody to enslave princess Leia, so long as they clad her appropriately.

        1. No respect for the deceased?

      2. I posted a lot about that Muslim professor at Georgetown – the son-in-law of a convicted terrorist sympathizer – who said slavery isn’t intrinsically good or bad, and that kidnapping woman to be concubines isn’t necessarily wrong, and the only reason we in the West think it’s automatically wrong is that we make a fetish out of sexual consent.

        The thing which bothers me is that Georgetown is a Catholic university and this guy is the Director of the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown which seems to be part of the School of Foreign Service, where future American diplomats are trained. Plus Georgetown is supposedly making apologies for its history of complicity with slavery.

        One of Georgetown’s famous alumni, the late William (“The Exorcist”) Blatty, tried to force Georgetown to live up to its pretensions of being a Catholic university, but apparently there’s still some ways to go.

        Even soft-on-slavery Catholics have tended to object to forced concubinage.

        1. Fortunately, the President of Georgetown has denounced the Muslim professor for his support of slavery…no wait, my bad, that was *another* Catholic institution, Loyola, whose President denounced libertarian professor Walter Block for trying to explain why the problem with slavery was its involuntary nature, and who added the “other than that, Mrs. Lincoln how did you like the play” remark that apart from its involuntariness, slavery wasn’t so bad.

        2. Shit Eddie; what’s wrong with conquering people and making their women your concubines? Didn’t the Republican Governor of California say that the best thing in life is to “Crush your enemies. See them driven before you. Hear the lamentations of their women.”?

          1. It’s the Age of Trump – he’s going to proclaim National Grab A Hoo-Ha Day.

            1. Trumpty Dumpty, He’s quite off-the-wall,
              Trumpty Dumpty won’t stay in His toilet stall
              He just goes ahead and takes His shits,
              Totally regardless of whereever He sits
              Whenever He simply, no way, can sleep,
              He Twits us His thoughts, they’re all SOOO deep!
              He simply must, He MUST, Twit us His bird,
              No matter the words, however absurd!
              He sits and snorts His coke with a spoon,
              Then He brazenly shoots us His moon!
              They say He’ll be impeached by June,
              Man, oh man, June cannot come too soon!
              So He sits and jiggles His balls,
              Then He Twitters upon the walls
              “Some come here to sit and think,
              Some come here to shit and stink
              But I come here to scratch my balls,
              And read the writings on the walls
              Here I sit, My cheeks a-flexin’
              Giving birth to another Texan!
              He who writes these lines of wit,
              Wraps His Trump in little balls,
              He who reads these lines of wit,
              Eats those loser’s balls of shit!”

              1. Ooops, sorry, 2nd time I posted this in the same article!!!

                (Blame the SQRLS!!!)

            2. But seriously, the Georgetown prof is paid to promote Muslim/Christian understanding.

              I’ve been trying to explain that there are pro-American Muslims and that being pro-American doesn’t make them less authentically Muslim.

              But when prestigious institutions – Catholic institutions, no less – sponsor this sort of extremism, it’s bound to be demoralizing to the pro-Americans.

              1. “Crush your enemies. See them driven before you. Hear the lamentations of their women.”

                1. Yes, yes, I heard you the first time.

                  1. Apparently not. How many of your enemies have you driven before you? That’s what I thought. Now, get off the computer and go crush some enemies.

                    1. Look, I’m sure you’re all tired of me bringing up this Brown dude, but slavery has often been the ultimate put-down of moral relativism – it brings them up short to say “well, if all cultures are equally valid, why not slaveowning cultures”?

                      And this guy takes up the challenge and says “well, why *not* slaveowning cultures?”

                      You see, when Americans did slavery it was oppressive, but don’t dare judge Muslims for doing slavery, they did it much better, and what *is* freedom anyway?

                    2. If you are driving them before you, i.e. they are running away, you aren’t doing it right.

                    3. Nope, got my buddy lying in ambush up ahead.

        3. “we make a fetish out of sexual consent”

          He didn’t limit it to sexual. He meant any and all consent as I read it.

          Badges, we don’t need no stinkin badges.

  48. Lawsuit against the bipartsian presidential debate committee.

    1. Correct me if I’m wrong, but apparently the goal here is to prove that the CPD is partisan and *therefore* shouldn’t be allowed to take corporate donations.

      Why *shouldn’t* a partisan group be allowed to take corporate donations?

      1. (I acknowledge the obvious fact that the CPD is partisan, but don’t they have a 1st Amendment right to be partisan without the government discriminating against them for it?)

        1. Withdraw the secret service and police protection. Then it won’t be publicly funded.

          1. I see, free speech is a protection racket. Say what we want or we withdraw police protection.

            Just like Milo has freedom of speech, but the government will let masked thugs close his speech down.

      2. I believe the issue is “non-partisian”, which qualifies for tax exempt status, vs. “bi-partisan”, meaning only Republicans and Democrats, which does not.

        1. bipartisan is still partisan, but I’m saying they have the right to be partisan.

          1. They have the right. They don’t qualify for tax exempt basis, because they are explicitly campaigning for either a Republican or Democrat for president.

            1. *status* not basis

            2. I know what Congress and the courts say, I’m saying they’re wrong.

              1. Wrong about what? The violation of the first amendment that campaign finance laws are? Or wrong that an entity that explicity says that only cadidates from the duopoply qualifies as “nonpartisan”?

              2. I’m saying the government shouldn’t discriminate against, say, the nonprofit Reason Foundation if (to take an example at random) the Foundation through its publications gives disproportionate favorable attention to Gary Johnson, or disproportionate unfavorable attention to (for instance) Donald Trump.

                1. The fact is, the government has no business putting their thumb on the scale by deciding which activties qualify for tax exempt status vs exercising your first amendment rights and being taxed for it

                  1. Unfortunately, isn’t that what the plaintiffs in this lawsuit want the government to do with the CPD?

                    1. Stick it in your appropriate gender’s hole. Every campaign appearance by the P’s and R’s are publicly funded.

                    2. Look, gaoxiaen, in the words of a famous poet (I think it was Robert Frost), put your lips on my dick, and suck my asshole, too.

    1. Andrews maintains that he was not calling for violence in his email, but rather was asking students to engage in calm and peaceful discussion.

      Tom Ciccotta, a senior at Bucknell University and the President of Bucknell’s libertarian club, emailed Professor Andrews to ask for an elaboration on the imposition of a “steep and lasting price.” Andrews responded by that by asking that question, Ciccotta was confirming his suspicion that there was a collaboration between “students who hate dark folks” and Bucknell’s faculty.

      By “discussion” he means = “shut up, stop asking questions, and submit to hysterical demonization”

      1. BTW, i listened to an interview between that same student @ Bucknell and Tom Woods a few weeks ago, and it was pretty good. He had some interesting remarks about the (broadly defined) ‘stuff that robby talks about’. worth a listen.

    2. “…On Monday, January 16th, Bucknell Economics Professor Marcellus Andrews wrote a tempestuous email…”

      A professor of econ calls libertarians ‘fascists’?
      If you or anyone you know has an opportunity to take a class from this guy, I’d suggest not doing so.

    3. Michael Malice had some funny Bucknell stories on Tom Woods’ podcast.

    4. Mike Hihn is a professor?

    5. Econ major here. 80% of my professors were libertarianish. At Berkeley.

      3 of my professors ended up in the Obama admin. And they all walked because of the bullshit.

      It’s a shame that this asshole and the Paul Krugmans of the world get the publicity.

      You can know for sure that some bullshit is coming down the pipeline when the media makes sure to mention that Krugman has a “Nobel prize”.

      1. Not ragging on you or your instructors, but the slimebag Robert Reich rates a weekly column in the lefty SF Chron and it seems to be the same column every week (at least as far as I’m willing to read):
        “THE RICH ARE GETTING RICHER QUICKER THAN THE POOR ARE GETTING RICHER AND THEREFORE SOMETHING SOMETHING THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD APPOINT ME TO RUN THE ECONOMY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

        1. Reich is from the Clinton administration. And an instructor in “not a real subject”. And a lawyer, not actually a professor. And a pathetic midget.

          I had Tyson, Romer (the lady half), and Orszag (not in that order).

  49. Professor calls libertarians ‘fascists, racists’ who deserve a ‘lasting price’

    SRC,

    Do you have a link to Professor Andrews’s original letter? I could not find it.

    1. http://thetab.com/us/bucknell/…..ampus-1908

      Trigger Warning: The prof is barely literate.

    2. I did a quick look for it, and could not find it (it was sent to other professors)

      this article seems to excerpt very large chunks of it, e.g.

      “The fascist should be allowed to speak ?even on Bucknell’s dime ? but the targets of his abuse need to be able to impose a steep and lasting price on the racists and fascists that invited him ? since ‘free speech’ is the demand that government refrain from sanctioning speech, not a general principle that vicious speech is without a social price in general. But that fragility is also reflected in the demand for an administration to make things better when safety is not something an administration can deliver.

      If the outcasts at Bucknell, like the black folks I am born to, remind themselves that though they are not now and can never be truly welcomed by those who insist on their superiority at our expense, or by any elite college or university right now, we can defeat these silly though perhaps dangerous people if we remain enlightened and, well, use Bucknell as a training site to develop and practice intellectual and social (and in my day physical) combat skills that will serve us well in the wider American scene.””

      1. When I was a graduate student at Yale a student political coalition then known as The Party of the Right used to have ‘n***** hunting and n***** hurting’ parties where groups of young conservative white men would go around shouting and trying to humiliate black students, among others. One of these gangs even urinated on a few of us ? drunk fascists tend to do that sort of thing ? with most unfortunate consequences for themselves as the group of dark men ‘graced’ by their pee were, well, extremely skilled at combat and used our skills to rearrange a few faces, snap a few bones and thereby change the behavior of some folks.

        I will say in passing that those of us who were treated to the urine of believers in their status as members of the superior race were all born of killing zones and had survived same, with a couple of us being Vietnam vets and the rest of us learning very effective combat skills in those most effective training grounds: New York, Philly, LA, DC, NOLA and Chicago. We were prepared to defend ourselves and retaliate with skill and, frankly style, when we were attacked (one Party of the Right-er brought a gun with him, only to see that gun used to pistol whip him ? it does not do to bring a weapon and threaten people when you do not know what you are doing).
        ….

        1. Things that never happened for $200, Alex.

          1. It’s like a bullshit story a child dreams up about how they fought a bully.

            1. And then everyone stood up and started clapping.

      2. So the essential question for outcasts at Bucknell now is this: what is to be done when an administration simply cannot provide effective protection to outcasts but outcasts have all kinds of weapons of self defense and even powerful offense lying around waiting to be developed? As far as I can tell, Bucknell’s administration would discipline a professor who spoke of ‘raping n***** monkeys’ (though I should hope not fire that person because it is essential for dark students to test their combat skills against such a racist nimrod . . . . we have to be able to point to him or her and say ‘that is what a racist looks like’ when racism deniers do their thing). And I am pretty sure that a ‘n***** hunting and n***** hurting” gang would be invited to leave Bucknell ? though I fully expect a gaggle of drunk, fascist fraternity boys (a minority within a minority) to accidentally kill or maim someone someday because these deluded folks never understand the dangers they are playing with until it is much too late.””

        1. G, could you please sum up the point and aim us at the relevant cites? I’m not sure what I’m to see in that cascade.

          1. Charles asked =

            Do you have a link to Professor Andrews’s original letter?

            And i responded =

            This article seems to excerpt very large chunks of it,

            and proceeded to share the chunks (quoted above)

            As for what you’re supposed to glean from “crazy professor’s rant”?… well, i think you would need some advanced courses in Victim-Studies before attempting a proper gibberish-translation.

            1. “Charles asked =
              Do you have a link to Professor Andrews’s original letter?
              And i responded =
              This article seems to excerpt very large chunks of it,”

              Thank you. Context is always welcome, and beyond the question of literacy (Per SF), your quotes make it obvious the man is not in touch with reality.
              Re: Victim Studies:

              “The fascist should be allowed to speak ?even on Bucknell’s dime ? but the targets of his abuse need to be able to impose a steep and lasting price on the racists and fascists that invited him ? since ‘free speech’ is the demand that government refrain from sanctioning speech, not a general principle that vicious speech is without a social price in general.”

              Yep, there must be some ‘social price’ in speech. I think it’s a buck and a quarter per hour. But only for lefties who don’t get “Congress shall make no law…”

              1. I think whats interesting about the bit you quoted is that he specifies that the “price for speech” should be paid by the Campus Republicans who invited Milo to speak… not Milo himself;

                iow, that they should be held responsible for the things someone else says…. for allowing someone to have a public hearing, and for daring to listen to them

                his statement seems to pretend that he’s very pro ‘free speech’, but what he’s actually saying in substance isn’t that “bad speech should suffer”, its that people who *enable* bad speech should be punished.

  50. “GOP lawmakers face angry, worried constituents at town halls”
    […]
    “The voter identified himself as a cancer survivor, and he had something to say to Republican Rep. Justin Amash: “I am scared to death that I will not have health insurance in the future.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/news/pol…..925273.php

    As a warning, the Chron seems to have a daily quota of TRUMPACAPOLIPS stories and they are move than willing to drag the bottom of the feeds to find one or more.
    Plus, this is an AP feed; you have been warned once more.

    1. Constituents = people who drove in from out of state.

      1. Playa, I get the rag every morning, and have yet to break the habit of a ‘cuppa’ and the paper. But the change since the Chron hired the marketing major makes it very easy (perhaps too easy) to spot the ‘desired’ stories; I don’t bother linking the ‘new thinking on bums’ program the paper was promoting; they enlisted every lefty rag and blog they could find and (amazingly!), the bums are a result of capitalism, greed and landlords!
        The ‘new thinking’ is some dweeb with a *WHITE BOARD* (!) and a lot of taxpayer money.
        And acquaintance who was a columnist hemmed and hawed, but it was clear that his columns were to support the story; he ‘resigned’.

  51. You know I don’t entirely dislike Stossel, and that’s saying something, because I’m at the least an iconoclast, if not a misanthrope. Let’s put it this way- I dislike Stossel as little as it is likely I could dislike a man in his position.

    1. This is, by the way, kind of high praise from me.

  52. Did someone say something about a mouse stash?

    1. You hungry? I’m kind of hungry.

  53. “hospitals are largely socialist bureaucracies.”

    Yes, yes they are.

    “Since then I’ve learned that there are those who understand reason and the majority who will never get it. And nothing I can do will make much difference for most people.”

    is it that don’t get it, or just would rather not?

  54. Stossel (along with Larry Elder and few others) introduced to me to the concept of libertarianism. As recently as the early 2000’s I wasn’t familiar with this ideology.

    And I would not have watched Stossel if he wasn’t on ABC 20/20. And Stossel says, some of his reporting actually got good ratings.

    We definitely need compelling figures from the center right to take over mainstream media. I think a silent majority is there to make a success out of their program if the style and personality is just right and lend a lot of credence to libertarian ideas that were dismissed as fringe.

  55. You know I’ve always wondered if Stossel’s mustache is the reason behind why the character of Ron Swanson has a similar style mustache.

  56. A company only makes sales when as customer thinks the price of the goods or service is worth it. That is why both sides say thank you. Capitalism works by providing goods and services at prices people are willing to pay. Crony capitalism is similar, but uses tax money and services to defray their own costs making their goods and services developed at a price people are willing to pay.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.