Got the world in a jug, the stopper’s in my hand

If it had been a 10- or 11-foot gator, it might have been a different story.”

“Make sure you hang in there until the 1:50 mark to get the full pop-and-lock effect, along with some moonwalking in penny loafers.”

“Far too many churches are answering questions that few people are asking.”

“So, once again, they fail to understand the central meaning of their office: That they serve the church rather than rule it.”

That was like obstructing justice cubed.”

“I have decided that we will not participate in the collecting of signatures in our parish. Doing so would, I believe, prove hurtful and seriously divisive in our community.”

“It always falls back on the patient if the cure doesn’t work and that is where these therapies get cruel. They are trying to do something that is impossible and when it doesn’t work you get blamed for it.”

“I learned that the best way to destroy a prejudice was to have the courage to encounter those we have learned to prejudge.”

“Standing up for justice usually means confronting those who don’t know why they do what they do.”

“They used a deadly combination of trusting in their ability to sell the vividness of their own imaginations combined with a resolute refusal to look a fact in the face.”

I didn’t know it was against the law to vote.”

“If they are so convinced they are right on the issue, why must they lie about everything?”

“We live in a culture that values neither the career women nor the stay at home moms. Because women live lives that are considered public property, to be legislated and debated and discussed, rather than merely lived, there’s not a woman in the United States who is not facing criticism for her choices.”

“What was happening to these women was a human rights violation that the US government opposes when it is done to Afghan women.”

“On behalf of the great state of Oklahoma I want to take this opportunity to apologize.”

Before Social Security, people like Vincent were considered unpleasant accidents best kept out of the public eye and certainly undeserving of personhood status.”

This is not an exaggeration. Check it out yourself.”

“Ryan has every right to promote his budget as a good idea for the country. But let’s spare the crocodile tears for the poor whom he would liberate from “dependence,” and the abuse of social encyclicals to justify libertarian political philosophy.”

“The Affordable Care Act included provisions designed to help stop this scary trend — not just by expanding health care access (many maternal deaths could be prevented with proper care) — but also through the Maternal, Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting program, created as part of ACA, which provides nurses and social workers to work with high-risk moms, starting before they give birth, to help them have healthy pregnancies and deliveries and support their babies’ health and development after birth.”

“We live in a country that where we routinely feed pigs and cows so much antibiotics that it’s big news when the FDA says we should maybe restrict the practice to animals that are actually, you know, sick, but a human being can die for lack of access to those same drugs.”

“If I had to pick a picture to illustrate the political economy of the United States over the last century, this would be the one.”

(Post title remembers Bessie Smith, Empress of the Blues, who was born April 15, 1894.)

Stay in touch with the Slacktivist on Facebook:

Left Behind Classic Fridays, No. 83: 'Today's Gospel reading'
'Game of Thrones' and the Bible
That time I was the evil opposite of Neoliberalism
Chapter and verse
  • EllieMurasaki

    It’s legal and constitutional for a person who gets a state paycheck to sexually assault a woman in zir custody? Fuck that.

    And the Ryan/Republican budget. The hell happened to the Preamble?

  • hidden_urchin

    It’s legal and constitutional for a person who gets a state paycheck to sexually assault a woman in zir custody?

    Well, if they were arrested then they clearly were guilty of a crime and so don’t deserve to be treated like anything other than the animals they are. /sarcasm

    You know?  I’m actually somewhat afraid of my own government and society at this point.   At worst, I can be arrested and be treated as if I am not worth being treated as a human being.  At best, if I play by the rules and am not falsely arrested, my body is treated as public property and I am considered unfit to make medical decisions without the interference of the state.  The problem is that our society is arrest-happy and there is not nearly enough oversight of police departments to make sure they get it right, so playing by the rules is no assurance of relative safety.

    Where did “We The People” go so wrong?

    Edit to add: I just want to make it clear that even if a person committed a crime that person should still be treated with dignity and respect. I reread my original post and didn’t think that came through strongly enough.

  • AnonymousSam

    Holy what. Which article had that little piece of WTFery?

  • EllieMurasaki

    The one where the link says it’s a human rights violation that, when done to Afghan women, the US government opposes.

  • hidden_urchin

    Apparently Michigan backed down a bit:
    http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2012/04/12/update-michigan-department-of-corrections-abandons-routine-body-cavity-searches/

    Of course, that doesn’t stop other places from doing it and it doesn’t mean that it won’t start up again when no one’s looking.  What is it people are always saying around here, “if it isn’t a right then it’s a privilege and can be taken away?”

    Yeah, I’m getting that distinct feeling from this whole affair.

  • AnonymousSam

    Oh, that one. Yeah. ._. For a minute, I somehow interpreted your comment to be about husbands sexually assaulting their wives (and with how the Republicans seem determined to catapult us back a century, that would have been oh so believable). I didn’t sleep for CRAP last night.

  • http://jesustheram.blogspot.com/ Mr. Heartland

    “If they are so convinced they are right on the issue, why must they lie about everything?”

    Because they see themselves as the walking incarnations of Rightness.  It isn’t a matter of being right because their statements are factually correct.  It is a matter of anything they happen to say being the Truth because they are the ones saying it.  Good ol Colbert magic is all. 

    * As an aside, I happened to overhear an abortion argument at an Occupy picnic earlier today.  The guy on the pro-life side gave the normal ‘abortion is murder’ yada yada and then he said something that kind of struck me.  ‘God put that baby there’ he said. 

    I mean, he was virtually stating in as many words that the penis is God.  It actually would have been much less disturbing if he had said so directly. 

  • Michael Pullmann

    I would also like to apologize for Oklahoma, except I include Garth Brooks in that apology. Really, we didn’t know he was going to do that, or we would have stopped him.

  • Tricksterson

    What did he do?

  • Tricksterson

    You really have to hit that second article.  And then go to Youtube and hit the version where “Single Ladies” is dubbed over it.  You have not lived til you’ve seen and heard that.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Who’s this “Ryan” dude anyway, and why is his name attached to a budget? It’s like people are presenting it as some kind of alternate universe budget in which some guy named Ryan somehow assumed the Presidency after McCain kicked it and Palin resigned.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charity-Brighton/100002974813787 Charity Brighton

    Paul Ryan is a Republican Congressman serving as the Representative for Wisconsin’s 1st district. His name is attached to the budget because he developed it and introduced it onto the floor of the House as his proposal for FY 2012.

    I don’t really understand what you mean by “as if Ryan somehow assumed the Presidency”. You don’t have to be President to introduce a budget. In fact, the Constitution specifically grants the power to create a budget to the House of Representatives, which Paul Ryan is in. The law requires the President to submit a budget request to the House of Representatives but that in no way prevents members of the House from developing their own budget requests. It doesn’t really suggest at all that Ryan is the President.

    (This doesn’t mean that Ryan’s budget isn’t a travesty, which it is, but there’s nothing weird about the idea that he has his own budget proposal. The weird part is that he’s apparently the only Congressperson with a budget proposal. I understand why Democrats aren’t bothering — they know that nothing productive is going to get done until the next elections — but several Republicans agree that Ryan’s budget proposal is a dishonest mess that throws everyone (except for the military) under the bus and they’re not even trying to gin up support for a counter-proposal.)

  • Lori

    The weird part is that he’s apparently the only Congressperson with a budget proposal. 

    This. There is no rational reason that we should still be discussing a Ryan budget. I’ve lost track of how many iterations the Ryan budget has gone through and they’re all terrible and unsupportable. In any reasonable world the GOP leadership would have benched Ryan and had someone else give it a go.

     

    I understand why Democrats aren’t bothering — they know that nothing productive is going to get done until the next elections — but several Republicans agree that Ryan’s budget proposal is a dishonest mess that throws everyone (except for the military) under the bus and they’re not even trying to gin up support for a counter-proposal.) 

    The insistence on marching in lockstep, even if it means going over a cliff is one of the modern GOP’s more infuriating traits.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charity-Brighton/100002974813787 Charity Brighton

     

    Actually each of the spells are level 0 so:

    The funny thing is, they actually aren’t. About ten Republicans (not a lot, but a lot since they usually do march lockstep) voted with the Democrats against Ryan’s budget when it came up for a vote this time. One of them, Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, called the budget out because it won’t actually balance the budget until 2040 and specifically exempts the military from the axe. Of course, most of the criticism against the Ryan budget are because they don’t cut enough, which is like criticizing the 2012 mortgage settlement because it was too punitive..

    When you can come up with a snappy one or two word appellation for a
    thing or phenomenon, no matter how true or untrue one’s description of
    it is, it becomes way easier to create the links you want to make in the
    public’s mind.

    That’s true, but as Lori pointed out, he’s already doing that. There are limitations to how much anyone can really do about the budget process though. House Republicans will never authorize a plan less right-wing than the Ryan proposal, and Senate Democrats will defeat anything that House Republicans would endorse. That’s why Obama seems to be looking forward to the next House elections, where — hopefully – he can get a House that can actually discharge its legal responsibilities.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    He HAD a majority in both houses and still managed to let the Republicans sandbag him with every procedural trick in the book with the willing complicity of the Blue Dogs.

    Forgive my lack of enthusiasm.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charity-Brighton/100002974813787 Charity Brighton

    That’s true, but he managed to pass a budget with the last Congress without any fuss. Then he got this new Congress and had to wage this protracted battle for several months before they finally approved the funding the next budget (that is, only after the US’s credit score was downgraded, and only after the President consented to painful, stupid budget cuts that no one expects to actually be enacted).

    I don’t really consider that a reasonable or healthy way to run a government and I hope you can forgive my lack of enthusiasm for two more years of watching John Boehner try to wrangle a pack of incompetent ideologues and misogynistic tyrants into some approximation of a legislature.

  • Tricksterson

    I thought the Rupublicans were favored to win the Senate and increase their hold on the House (Not too sure about the last part but am about the first)

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charity-Brighton/100002974813787 Charity Brighton

    They are, which that doesn’t mean that he shouldn’t campaign against them hard.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    That’s the whole point. Why isn’t Obama calling his proposals the “Obama budget” and directly highlighting, in counterpoint, how his proposale make more sense than anything this Ryan dude crapped out?

    If the Repubs are effectively “owning” Ryan’s budget then the Dems should damn well “own” Obama’s budgetary proposals and try some pushback. It’s like how the Repubs smeared the ACA calling it “Obamacare” and ginning up all sorts of scare stories under the heading of “Obamacare”.

    When you can come up with a snappy one or two word appellation for a thing or phenomenon, no matter how true or untrue one’s description of it is, it becomes way easier to create the links you want to make in the public’s mind.

  • Lori

     

    Why isn’t Obama calling his proposals the “Obama budget” and directly
    highlighting, in counterpoint, how his proposale make more sense than
    anything this Ryan dude crapped out? 

    He has. The counter to the Ryan budget is widely called the Obama budget. Obama gave a speech just the other day about why the Ryan budget sucks and his is better. He ended the speech by pointing out that no one has to take his word for it because they can look it up for themselves, which was both true and a dig at the handwave that constitutes virtually all of Ryan’s social services cuts.

  • JoyfulA

     The Progressive Caucus has a great budget proposal that even cuts the deficit.

  • http://twitter.com/lesterhalfjr Chris Hadrick

    “And the Ryan/Republican budget. The hell happened to the Preamble?”

    ?

  • Lori

     The Ryan budget does not by any stretch of the imagination “provide for the general welfare”.

  • http://profiles.google.com/marc.k.mielke Marc Mielke

    I think Paul Ryan is simply jealous of his fictitious relative.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-_CLDNkv4k&feature=related 

  • Josh

    Wait, Oklahoman author is proud of Garth Brooks but doesn’t mention Woody Guthrie, Ralph Ellison, and Jim Thompson? lolwut?

  • http://twitter.com/lesterhalfjr Chris Hadrick

    Lori- that’s not what the general welfare clause means. it means to provide for the general as opposed to specific welfare. policies and actions should provide for all, not certain groups or classes. We didn’t even have income tax till 1913, there was never a mandate to provide things for people a la charity.

  • Lori

    We also didn’t have a standing army and what amounts to an empire of military bases around the globe and yet Conservatives have no problem providing for that. So your argument fails to impress, and that’s without even getting into the fact that much of what Conservatives call specific “charity” in reality does benefit everyone by making the world generally less shitty.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Providing for the general welfare does indeed mean providing for everybody’s welfare. That means that if someone is not faring well, it is our responsibility to fix that. Rich people are faring well without welfare, and therefore don’t need it; poor people are not and therefore do. Anyway, providing an unemployed person with a job provides Sam Walton and Bill Gates with a customer, and therefore everybody wins.

  • Beroli

     

    Lori- that’s not what the general welfare clause means.

    I’d ask to see your source, except I already know from past experience that it would be some other idiot like you, whose word you accepted because he (possibly she, but probably he) said things you wanted to hear.

  • Kubricks_Rube

    “it means to provide for the general as opposed to specific welfare. policies and actions should provide for all, not certain groups or classes.”

    Setting aside that the debate over the intended meaning of the general welfare clause is not some recent plot by Stalin and FDR but goes back as far as to when it was written and was not even agreed upon by those who drafted and ratified it, isn’t it at all possible that over the last few centuries we’ve realized that the general welfare can not reasonably, effectively or efficiently be addressed- and therefore the Constitution cannot be plausibly upheld- without providing for specific welfare as well?

  • TheFaithfulStone

    Gimme a pigs foot, and a bottle of beer.

    Bessie Smith, FTW.

  • http://twitter.com/lesterhalfjr Chris Hadrick

    Lori- we shouldn’t  have all the military bases and no standing army would be fine with me.  That’s neither here nor there though. The Constitution gave congress 18 different powers in article 1 section 8. If “general welfare” were as vague as you claim there would have been no need for the other 17.

    providing for the general welfare meant they were NOT allowed to provide for special interests. this of course they have totally ignored anyway 

    “The Constitution limits government, it doesn’t authorize unlimited goverment”- Roger Pilon

  • Lunch Meat

    providing for the general welfare meant they were NOT allowed to provide for special interests.

    That’s silly. Does providing for the “common” defense mean they’re not allowed to defend specific people? (There goes the Secret Service…) Does ensuring “domestic” tranquility mean they’re not allowed to help with tranquility in other nations through foreign aid?

  • Lori

    That’s neither here nor there though.

    Ah yes, the standard line—I’m not for military spending, but stopping it doesn’t really matter. The only thing that matters is that the government is absolutely forbidden from helping Those People.

    As always, lovely talking to ya Chris.  

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    providing for the general welfare meant they were NOT allowed to provide for special interests. this of course they have totally ignored anyway

    If that were true, you’re defending one terrible constitution.

  • JayemGriffin

    In other news: The UB InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, which forced its gay treasurer to resign (you may remember the incident from a similar linkstorm post on here) has finally been derecognized. Basically, they can’t get school funding for their activities anymore, unless they choose to remove the discriminatory articles from their constitution. (source: 
    http://www.ubspectrum.com/news/intervarsity-christian-fellowship-derecognized-1.2849203#.T4xgsrOWlbw 

  • http://twitter.com/lesterhalfjr Chris Hadrick

    lunch meat- the wording of the Constitution is vague in places but providing for the general welfare as you have described it would make the whole document essentially void. anyone could define the general welfare as whatever they wanted.  The point of the constitution is to tell the government what it can’t do, what it’s limits are.  

  • Kubricks_Rube

    “anyone could define the general welfare as whatever they wanted.”

    Just as (some of) the founders intended. Alexander Hamilton, 1791:

    The National Legislature has express authority “To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare” with no other qualifications than that “all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that “no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.”

    These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and “general Welfare.” The terms “general Welfare” were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou’d have been restricted within narrower limits than the “General Welfare” and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

    It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.

    The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this–That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

    No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.

  • hidden_urchin

    Yeppers.  The Founding Fathers left parts of the Constitution less well defined so that it could be changed to accomodate changing conditions.  That’s why it has survived as long as it has.

    I’m still waiting for my updated Bill of Rights.  That things like the right to not be hungry or the right to not die of a treatable disease are not yet a part of the Constitution is a damned disgrace.*  They may not have been achievable in the 18th century but that’s no excuse in the 21st.

    *Ideally this would all go without saying.  However, the Constitution-worship in American pretty well means that it isn’t going to happen until it gets into the Constitution.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

    One of the most inconvenient facts for people trying to argue from a base of “what the Founder meant by X in the Constitution” is that lots of the Founders left behind lots of papers where they wrote “this is what I meant by X in the Constitution.”

    If we accept “original intent” as a valid grounds for interpreting the Constitution, why do so many “originalists” want to ignore things like the Federalist Papers that specifically lay out that original intent?

    Oh right, because “originalists” just want to pretend that their interpretation is Holy Writ and pesky facts might get in the way.

    Funny how many of those “originalists” are also “Biblical literalists.” It’s almost as if it had something to do with a certain mindset rather than with any kind of studied approach to interpreting texts.

  • http://twitter.com/lesterhalfjr Chris Hadrick

    Lori- a democrat trying to make a Ron Paul supporter look like they are unwilling or unafraid to cut military spending and doesn’t hold it very high if not the highest priority is really rich. You probably think the Hillary tumbl pics are hilarious.

  • Lori

    A) What does supporting Ron Paul have to do with it? There was never even the slightest possiblity that he would get the GOP nomination, let alone be elected president and he has done sweet fuck all with the job he does have. Supporting him doesn’t rise above the level of hot air.

    B) Irrelevent comments about (your idiotic notions of) my sense of humor do nothing for your argument but make you look like an ass.

  • http://twitter.com/lesterhalfjr Chris Hadrick

    Lori- the point I am very much antiwar. whatever “conservatives” do or think is non of my concern. Plenty of democrats voted for the Iraq war, does that mean you support it?

    kubricks-  Hamilton wanted a US Empire, of course he would seek to manipulate the general welfare clause.  Madison explained the GW clause as basically window dressing for the section on enumerated powers. Hamilton was lame.

    hidden urchin- No the constitution clearly enumerates various powers and anything not contained therin is unconstitutional. It doens’t need to change it should either be amended, followed or simply destroyed.

    Social Security may be good or bad but it is not constitutional.  There’s no authorization for it.

    ” things like the right to not be hungry or the right to not die of a treatable disease”

    these are outside the government’s purview.  It’s not their job.  They are the responsiblities of the person, their family and/or their comunity.

    also I started a blog  http://lesterhalfjr.blogspot.com/  just thought I ‘d throw that out there

  • hidden_urchin

    It doens’t need to change it should either be amended, followed or simply destroyed.

    Contradiction much?  An amendment to the Constitution would indeed be a change to it and the sign that the document needed to change in order to fit a changing society.

    It’s not their job.  They are the responsiblities of the person, their family and/or their comunity.

    A government is no more than a group of people chosen to represent the community and make decisions on behalf of that community.  The government is “We the People.”  Thus, it is the government’s job to help its citizens when they are in need. 

  • Kubricks_Rube

    “also I started a blog”

    Oh my god you did. And I think you did it just to make my head explode. In a post defending self-proclaimed racist John Derbyshire (!) you drop this gem:

    “Don’t try to understand women and their weird take on life at all. They are worse than Hezbollah and similarly their worldview will never make sense to the western mind.”

    You also say, “John Derbyshire is a lucky bastard: I wish I was famous enough to be blacklisted!”

    You’re famous enough to be blacklisted by me, so congrats!

  • Lori

     

    Lori- the point I am very much antiwar. whatever “conservatives” do or think is non of my concern.  

    You’re the one who said that the budget impact of the Pentagon was neither here nor there, not me.  If your anti-war sentiments are so terribly vital and important then you probably shouldn’t brush them aside in your rush to condemn people for wanting a government that isn’t run by total assholes.

  • Tricksterson

    Visited.  I look forward to mocking you.

  • Lori

    “Don’t try to understand women and their weird take on life at all. They
    are worse than Hezbollah and similarly their worldview will never make
    sense to the western mind.”

    Oh for the love of FSM. I want to say that I can’t believe you trotted out that tired bit of bullshit, but I can.

    If that was an attempt at humor you might want to avoid future attempts to criticize things that other people find funny.  Compared to that “texts from Hillary” is freaking genius.

    If you’re serious, well that’s just one more area in which you are ignorant and vile.

    “John Derbyshire is a lucky bastard: I wish I was famous enough to be blacklisted!”

    I’d settle for you being famous enough to be blacklisted by Fred.

  • http://twitter.com/lesterhalfjr Chris Hadrick

    hidden urchin-  the point is if you want to add something to the constitution do it, don’t interpret some other part to suit your own desire.

    “The government is “We the People.” 

    no, we the people are the people. We could be a country without any government. the government couldn’t be the government with no country. They are a bunch of people with the limited powers they were given in the consitution . They aren’t “us”  we are their bosses, ostensibly.  We pay them to facilitate things.

    kubricks- I had a thing about reagan leaving lebanon after the barracks bombing saying he didn’t understand middle eastern politics. I took that out but left in the thing comparing women to hezbollah . I was saying I don’t mess with womens issues because it’s not worth it and I don’t understand alot of it. Have you ever read a Jackie Collins novel. It’s like straight porn. I have no problem with that it’s just kind of crazy.

    lori- no I was not serious. Women aren’t worse than hezbollah. It’s just grousing.

  • hidden_urchin

    the point is if you want to add something to the constitution do it, don’t interpret some other part to suit your own desire.

    So how is this not changing the Constitution again?  I’m still waiting for you to resolve the contradiction you set forth in that last post in which you said

    It doens’t need to change it should either be amended, followed or simply destroyed.

    Also, my entire point was that the Constitution was designed to be adaptable and should be changed to reflect the change in society.  Apparently, that doesn’t differ from your point so why did you respond to it?

    We could be a country without any government. the government couldn’t be the government with no country.

    The accuracy of this statement depends on your definitions.Unless you are talking about geographic borders or a homogenous population, it is very unlikely the USA could be considered a country without a central government.  More likely it would fracture into a lot of smaller communities.Also, if you consider the government as separate from the people, it is possible for a government to exist apart from its country such as the Free French Government in exile during WWII.  This actually poses a bit of a problem since such exiles tend to be out of touch with the people and frequently overestimate their own popularity.  (It gets outsiders involved in internal affairs for which they are wholly unprepared.)If, however, you consider the government to be the people then it does indeed grow from a community and require that community to exist.  “Country” is a bit too specific.So, exactly what do you mean by “country” and “government.”  Is a country a geographic area or a community held together by a common idelogy/language/culture/etc.?  Is a government a part of the people or separate from them?

    They are a bunch of people with the limited powers they were given in the consitution . They aren’t “us”  we are their bosses, ostensibly.  We pay them to facilitate things.

    The people who make up the government come from “us” unless you intend to argue that they are foreign nationals.  As I said, they were chosen to represent the community as a whole.  That doesn’t separate them from the community and it doesn’t absolve the community of responsibility for the decisions they make.The problem is that those so chosen have taken to listening to a minority instead of the people as a whole.  However, as the community put them into power and has not yet removed them from it, they are still the voice of the people. 

  • Kubricks_Rube

    On your blog post it was: “Have you every read a romance novel or even watched a soap opera? It’s sordid beyond all measure, but you never see anyone trying to ban them or anything, even the fire and brimstone preachers are smart about that. Luke rapes Laura and their wedding is one of the top 3 most watched events in tv history!”

    This follows, “Conservatives who got all upset about Sandra Fluke kind of had a point, […]In theory, they are right. In practice, save your ammo for something more important…”

    Am I right that the comparison here is between denying contraceptive coverage and banning soap operas? Like they’re both frivolous and not very important so why bother letting them get in the way of saving liberty? I get that it’s supposed to be a joke, but I think you’re right about not understanding “womens issues.”

    Also, what Lunch Meat just said. 

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    We pay them to facilitate things.

    Exactly. For example, we pay them to facilitate everyone getting healthcare and education.

  • http://twitter.com/lesterhalfjr Chris Hadrick

    trickerston- thanks. My next article is going to be about Shaima Alawadi I think.

  • http://twitter.com/lesterhalfjr Chris Hadrick

    ” Is a country a geographic area or a community held together by a common idelogy/language/culture/etc.? ”

    in general yes. the point wasn’t about anarchy or something, but that the people and their customs and so forth are the country.  Germans have had a number of different types of governments but germans are germans. You watch the travel channel and see people eating barbeque and stuff, that’s America, not whatever is going on in Washington. Most people don’t even vote.

    “Also, my entire point was that the Constitution was designed to be adaptable and should be changed to reflect the change in society. ”

    totally disagree. The Constitution should be the same and the society should  change however it wants around that not vice versa. 

  • hidden_urchin

    The Constitution should be the same and the society should  change however it wants around that not vice versa. 

    the point is if you want to add something to the constitution do it, don’t interpret some other part to suit your own desire.

    It doens’t need to change it should either be amended, followed or simply destroyed.

    So…should it be possible to change (i.e. amend) the Constitution or should it not?  You’re kind of arguing both sides here.

  • BaseDeltaZero

    >
    general as opposed to specific welfare. policies and actions should provide for all, not certain groups or classes.

    How the heck are you supposed to ‘provide for all’ welfare if not by providing for specific groups?  It’s absurd – you can’t affect the whole without affecting the part.

    We could be a country without any government.

    Briefly.

    “They aren’t “us”  we are their bosses, ostensibly.”

    Well, we are, indeed, essentially their bosses.  Or stockholders, perhaps.  In this, the government is an extension of the the people’s will.  While saying ‘the government is the people’ is not entirely correct, it’s also bizarre to pretend that the government is some sort of alien externally imposed power (some governments are, but the US isn’t one of them).

    totally disagree. The Constitution should be the same and the society should  change however it wants around that not vice versa. 

    The hell?  Just… the hell?

  • Lunch Meat

    I was saying I don’t mess with womens issues because it’s not worth it and I don’t understand alot of it.

    “Treat us like people!” is just so darn complicated.

  • http://twitter.com/lesterhalfjr Chris Hadrick

    base- again, the point isn’t about the size of government but about what constitutes the thing called America. We are defined by our culture and so forth, not by Richard Nixon or John Edwards or whatever horrble sceme DC is dreaming up. We didn’t have an income tax before 1913, we were srill America. I would argue moreso. John Lennon, Steve jobs, whoever your heroes are.

    “it’s also bizarre to pretend that the government is some sort of alien externally imposed power”

    thats the origin of the state right there. the conquering armies forcing the conquered people to produce for them.

    “How the heck are you supposed to ‘provide for all’ welfare if not by providing for specific groups?”

    You enact policies that benefit the general population as opposed to ONLY jews or italians or something, or the rich or the poor. no favoritism or using state resources for your buddies.

    “In this, the government is an extension of the the people’s will. ”

    It’s not an extention of mine and I’m a person. It’s not even an extention of most peoples. it’s mainly an extention of washingtons. the green zone. their interests.

  • P J Evans

    “it’s also bizarre to pretend that the government is some sort of alien externally imposed power”

    thats the origin of the state right there. the conquering armies forcing the conquered people to produce for them.

    You just failed American history and government. You can keep on digging that hole, though: it’s not going to make you look any worse than you’ve done on your own so far.

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira


    I was saying I don’t mess with womens issues because it’s not worth it and I don’t understand alot of it.

    My god. It’s full of stars.

    Half the population “is not worth it.” Right.

    And you compare a fictional program from the 1980s to actual human beings’ real lives in 2012.  Do you realize how absurd it is to use something that happened in a fictional work (that was roundly criticized by feminists at the time) to justify the abuse of a real live woman over twenty years later? Do you even comprehend the difference between fantasy and reality? Do you understand the passage of time? I’m gonna guess no on all counts.

    But silly me, with my woman-ness, thinking you’d look at a word I say and think it was worthwhile. Just go ahead and dismiss everything because it comes from a woman, we’re so incomprehensible and we don’t matter at all anyway. I guess my fiance is a major world-class genius for being able to understand me. Though of course he’s totally off-base for thinking anything that affects me could ever affect him. I mean, what would he care if I had baby after baby after baby that I didn’t want? Or if I were raped or sexually harassed? Or if I get paid less because I’m a woman?  Pfft, none of that stuff could possibly affect men, right?

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    Yeah, giving money to poor people instead of rich people is favouritism. That’s terrible.

    God, you’re a dick.

  • Lori

    “Conservatives who got all upset about Sandra Fluke kind of had a point,

    No they did not.

    […]In theory, they are right. 

    No they were not.

    The entire Conservative attack on Sandra Fluke was lies from top to bottom. The fact that you believe otherwise proves that it is not just women that you don’t understand. You also fail logic and general decency, among other things. But we already knew that.

  • http://twitter.com/lesterhalfjr Chris Hadrick

    hidden- yes it should be possible to amend the constitution. Again, do that if you want, don’t take some vague part of the Constitution and say “See, this says the president can do whatever he wants”.

    Lliira-  the show General Hospital wasn’t real? I thought it was a reality show.  My point was people, mainly women, watched and celebrated the marriage of a rapist to his victim which is pretty weird. At the same time, who am I to say women shouldn’t watch such a thing? , i’m not going to pretend that makes much sense to me. Women have their understanding of those things that they know about.

    sgtt peppers- “Exactly. For example, we pay them to facilitate everyone getting healthcare and education.”

    not authorized by the Constitution.

    “Yeah, giving money to poor instead of rich people is favouritism. That’s terrible.”They do obviously anyway. Our foreign policy is controlled

    People can still practice favoritism. You can give money to poor people or to various causes that benefit specific rather than general welfares. The state can’t.  

    Obviously they do. Our foreign policy for example benefits Israel and not us. Wether that is the will of the people or not, you can’t fairly say it is being done for our defense.  and Cuban people in Florida are one big reason why we can’t go to Cuba. swing state.

      

  • EllieMurasaki

     I forget who said it first, but: if you want to give money to rich people, give it to poor people. The money will be in the rich people’s purses by nightfall, but at least it will have passed through the poor people’s hands. (Therefore, any application of money to the problems of the poor is also a handout to the rich, and also TARP could have saved a fuckton of people from foreclosures as well as saving the banks, QED.)

  • Lori

    My point was people, mainly women, watched and celebrated the marriage of a rapist to his victim which is pretty weird. At the same time, who am I to say women shouldn’t watch such a thing? , but i’m not going to pretend that makes much sense to me. Women have their understanding of
    those things that they know about. 

    Women A) weren’t the only ones watching, B) know fiction from reality and C) can be complex. They’re sort of like people that way.

    The issue of fiction vs reality is not as difficult as you seem to think it is. If you can’t understand it you should just leave it alone instead of making statements and then disingenuously saying, “Oh well, it’s none of my nevermind.”

    You’re sexist,  judgmental and blatantly stupid. You used your sexist, judgmental stupidity to further Right wing lies about Sandra Fluke. Then you tried to handwave your sexist, judgmental, stupid lying by saying that the wimmenz are just too weird to understand. Not OK, asshat. Not OK.

    People can still practice favoritism. You can give money to poor people or to various causes that benefit specific rather than general welfares. The state can’t.   

    The state practices favoritism toward the rich every single day and yet somehow you and people like you never get all up in arms about it. Funny that.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

     

    (Women are) sort of like people that way.

    Hey now, that’s some Radical Feminazi talk there. Next you’ll be saying they should be able to own property, vote, or control their bodily integrity.

  • Kubricks_Rube

    “My point was people, mainly women, watched and celebrated the marriage of a rapist to his victim which is pretty weird.”

    You know what I find weird? You’re dismissing the views of all women today because the viewership for a fictional wedding in 1981 was disporportionately female. Ron Paul’s racist newsletters ran from 1978 on. Should I write off the opinion of all men because they disproportionately support your favorite historical revisionist? Or to stick with broad judgments based on frivolous and outdated irrelevancies, should men be dismissed as inscrutable because they once made Steven Seagal and John Claude Van Damme into movie stars? Would you find that to be a useful and appropriate metric by which to decide if an issue has worth?

  • http://twitter.com/lesterhalfjr Chris Hadrick

    “The state practices favoritism toward the rich every single day and yet somehow you and people like you never get all up in arms about it. Funny that.”

     I’m totally opposed to corporatism, corporate welfare, etc I don’t know who people like me are.
    “Women A) weren’t the only ones watching,”

    It was mostly women though. That was the soap opera audience. It  wouldn’t be sexist to assume most of Lifetimes viewers are female.

    kubricks- it was just an example.  The same way women don’t get Rush (the band), I don’t get that stuff.

    and don’t ask me abuot the ron paul newsletters, they were awful. No excuses from me on that stuff.

  • Lori

     

    It was mostly women though. That was the soap opera audience. It
     wouldn’t be sexist to assume most of Lifetimes viewers are female. 

    You really, really need to work on your logic skills. What you did in your “argument” was not the equivalent of assuming that most Lifetime viewers are women. What you were doing is assuming most women are Lifetime viewers.  That’s not the same thing and does not have the same implications. 

    Your badly constructed argument is sexist in at least 2 major ways. First, that it reduces all women down to a narrow set of stereotypes. Second, you do not do treat men the same way.

    You then used your flawed, sexist argument to further lies about an individual woman.

    So yes, your argument is sexist and the fact that you not only made it, but keep defending it does make you an ass.

     

    and don’t ask me abuot the ron paul newsletters, they were awful. No excuses from me on that stuff.  

    And yet you still support him. More than that you act as if supporting him is a sign that you’re better than other people. 

  • Maniraptor

    Okay, I just can’t lurk through this anymore.

    1. Some women watching a problematic TV show is really not at all the same thing as women wanting healthcare access. “That stuff” is a completely meaningless statement – apart from making you look both dumb and cruel.
    2. I’m a lady who likes Rush. OH NO YOUR PRECIOUS ESSENTIALIST WORLDVIEW

  • Maniraptor

    (Okay, I mostly liked them when I was in high school, but it’s still more recent than a soap opera wedding from thirty years ago.)

    I realize it’s pointless trying to get you to see how dumb you come across when you project your personal experience as absolute statements, and will bow back into lurkerdom. But my inner younger, still rocking-out ‘Raptor could not let that assertion go without comment.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charity-Brighton/100002974813787 Charity Brighton

    2. I’m a lady who likes Rush. OH NO YOUR PRECIOUS ESSENTIALIST WORLDVIEW

    I have to admit, this is where using “Newest First” can really trip you up. I saw this and thought you were saying that you liked Rush Limbaugh

  • http://twitter.com/lesterhalfjr Chris Hadrick

    Mani- I don’t believe you like Rush. No women like Rush. No that’s fine I was just saying guys like guys stuff and girls like girls stuff most of the time.  A girl might like skateboarding but also LIfetime movies and a guy might like painting and also working on cars. There are differences between men and women.  

    Lori- w hat can I say, i don’t think I’m sexist. and I don’t think it really matters. I’m not going to discriminate against a woman or something somehow. I can grouse about woman if I want and call them names. I like too. They’re very terrible. present company excluded of course. 

    “And yet you still support him. More than that you act as if supporting him is a sign that you’re better than other people.”

    I think he has a better platform. that’s all I care about. He’s not Jesus Christ, he screwed up. Libertarianism was a very marginal viewpoint back then and they did what they had to do to survive.  It certainly wasn’t pretty and I really dislike that whole side of the right-libertarian thing but  in the end a  few peoples feelings might have gotten hurt by those newsletters, thousands died in the iraq war, yet I’m sure people see Hillary are enlightened somehow.

    We have different litmus tests.  Mine are related to the economic survival of the nation, yours are related to being able to say enightened things about QUILTBAG and gay marriage. I know that’s important to you but it’s not gonna mean much when we have another 9/11 because of our insane foreign policy or when our dollar is being used as bunny cage liner throughout the world.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    I think he has a better platform. that’s all I care about. He’s not Jesus Christ, he screwed up. Libertarianism was a very marginal viewpoint back then and they did what they had to do to survive.  It certainly wasn’t pretty and I really dislike that whole side of the right-libertarian thing but  in the end a  few peoples feelings might have gotten hurt by those newsletters, thousands died in the iraq war, yet I’m sure people see Hillary are enlightened somehow.

    He was young and he needed the money!

    We have different litmus tests.  Mine are related to the economic survival of the nation, yours are related to being able to say enightened things about QUILTBAG and gay marriage. I know that’s important to you but it’s not gonna mean much when we have another 9/11 because of our insane foreign policy or when our dollar is being used as bunny cage liner throughout the world.

    Your strong dollar won’t be much of a consolation to the woman dying from a back alley abortion, the gay man being denied his rights, the children dying from unsafe food and drugs or the elderly person starving to death because their retirement fund was raided.

    Especially since that strong dollar thing won’t happen, since history has shown seven way s to sunday that libertarian policies do not lead to economic success but to a few people becoming rich powerful warlords and everything else collapsing as they run the economy into the ground to extract every gram of short-term profit.

    (Seriously, if your policies worked, you’d simply be a monster. But libertarian policies *don’t work*. You’re a *stupid* monster.)

  • Kubricks_Rube

    “We have different litmus tests.  Mine are related to the economic survival of the nation, yours are related to being able to say enightened things about QUILTBAG and gay marriage.”

    1) Just because we don’t agree with you on economic policy doesn’t mean we don’t care about the economic survival of the nation. Your economic ideas would be a disaster for the nation. This is true whether or not you support marriage equality.

    2) Knock off the condescension. It is not about “being able to say” the right things (or are you mocking the first amendment now?), but actual, concrete rights for LGBT people, including the right to marry. Between this comment and your previous dismissive attitude toward the CRA and “women’s issues”, you’re doing a great job of reinforcing the moral bankruptcy of libertarianism. 

  • Lori

    w hat can I say, i don’t think I’m sexist. 

    This isn’t the first time that you’ve demonstrated a failure to grasp reality.

    and I don’t think it really
    matters.

    No, you’re not sexist at all.

    I’m not going to discriminate against a woman or something
    somehow.

    You are clearly defining discrimination in a fairly narrow way, but I’ll play it your way for the moment. If it is true that you will not do anything that meets your definition of discrimination it’s only because you lack the power to do so. 

    A person who has your attitudes towards women, your lack of logic and your tendency toward magical thinking in support of rigid ideaology doesn’t just set aside his clearly demonstrated sexism and act fairly when he has power. If you had power you would misuse it and then say that you weren’t.

    I can grouse about woman if I want and call them names. I like
    too. They’re very terrible. present company excluded of course. 

    Yes, you can grouse about women and call them names. And you’ll be called a sexist for it. Because you are. And, as usual, your attempts to be cute aren’t.

  • http://twitter.com/lesterhalfjr Chris Hadrick

    “Your strong dollar won’t be much of a consolation to the woman dying from a back alley abortion, the gay man being denied his rights, the children dying from unsafe food and drugs or the elderly person starving to death because their retirement fund was raided.”
     
    strong dollar is a fantasy,  remotely stable normal non inflating dollar is the goal for now. No, ending our massive military empire and the crackpot federal reserve systems hold on our economy will not solve every problem, but they are my priorities. You knw what’s raiding elderly peoples retirement funds? inflation and low interest rates, ask one they’ll tell you.  They have no idea what to do with their increasingly wortlhless dollars.

    Kids are dying from the food the factory farms produce and they’re being medicated to keep them in line. gay men may not have everything they want but they have most of what they need to survive.  i am for gay marriage anyway and all gay rights.  Yes if Roe v Wade were overturned it would be illegal in many states.  I’m pro chioce but the decision simpkly wasn’t Constitutional. The people in those states want to practice a traditional lifestyle. I think it’s a fantasy but let them find out. all the cool people can move up here.
     
     
     
     

  • EllieMurasaki

    Kids are dying from the food the factory farms produce and they’re being medicated to keep them in line.

    What do you propose to do about that? Personally, I think a step in the right direction would be giving USDA inspectors in poultry plants more than a second and a half to look over each chicken. Unfortunately, the libertarian plan of privatizing USDA operations instead involves dropping the chicken inspectors altogether, so the process can go from 35 birds/min to 200+. Nobody is going to spot chicken shit on the chickens at that rate, and then people are going to eat chicken shit, and fuck knows what’ll happen then but it won’t be pretty.

    Yes if Roe v Wade were overturned it would be illegal in many states. 
    I’m pro chioce but the decision simpkly wasn’t Constitutional.

    How can you call yourself pro-choice and not care about the women who will, if Roe is overturned, die of illegal abortions or of complications of pregnancies that should have ended in abortion?

    all the cool people can move up here.

    Yes, because the woman who can’t scrape together the cash for the Pill obviously has the resources to quit her job, abandon her social and support structures, and pack up and move.

  • http://twitter.com/lesterhalfjr Chris Hadrick

    I favor free market solutions to all these things. No coercian. one of the big problems with our food is govt subisidizing corn.  Ever see the documentary “king Corn”? It’s good.

    The government is basically subsidizing Big Macs.  people shoould spend more of their money on food but the govt has figured out how to make it super cheap (and unhealthy) so they can get our money for their thigns they like.

    People should spend their paychecks on good schools for their kids and good food.

    inspecting all these unhealthy animals that our ruining our diets isn’t going to make us healthy. they should reject ALL of them.  

    “How can you call yourself pro-choice and not care about the women who will, if Roe is overturned, die of illegal abortions or of complications of pregnancies that should have ended in abortion?”

    People in red states disagree and it’s their land. i have no more right to tell them have to live than people in Iraq.

    I don’t feel like gay marriage is as important to our literal survival as a nation as not having another 9/11. We have bigger issues now than we did in the 90’s when we cold mess around with stuff like that. and I have a new article http://lesterhalfjr.blogspot.com/2012/04/shaima-alawadi.html the opening p is kind of clunky but I have to go to work. I link to a patheos article even

  • EllieMurasaki

    I favor free market solutions to all these things. No coercian. one of the big problems with our food is govt subisidizing corn.

    Weren’t you listening? To the free market, chicken shit in our chicken isn’t a problem, it’s part of the solution to the problem of processing too few chickens per minute. It’s possible to believe the government is sometimes wrong (see: corn subsidies) without believing the government is always wrong.

    People should spend their paychecks on good schools for their kids and good food.

    What about the people who have no paycheck, or too small a paycheck to afford good schools and good food, or for whom there are no such in the area? Don’t their kids deserve good schools and good food?

    And how, pray tell, am I to know whether there’s chicken shit in my chicken before buying the chicken without opening the package and personally inspecting the chicken and getting kicked out of the store?

    People in red states disagree and it’s their land. i have no more right to tell them have to live than people in Iraq.

    Okay, fine, people in red states disagree with abortion –they can disagree all they like but the state has a compelling interest in protecting red-state women’s lives.

    Further, it is not their land. Whole damn continent’s Native American territory, which some of my ancestors had a hand in stealing and others benefited from the theft, and you’re a beneficiary just as much as I am. I have lived on Shawnee, Biloxi, Lenape, and Choctaw land. You want to discuss who has legal title to a particular slice of land, we can do that: I’m furious about the Bank of America et al foreclosures, especially on people whose mortgages were paying as agreed or paid in full. But you do not get to fucking say that the land of red states belongs to the red states or their people. It belongs to the descendants of the people who lived here before our white ancestors ever laid greedy eyes on the continent.

    I don’t feel like gay marriage is as important to our literal survival as a nation as not having another 9/11.

    And I don’t feel like avoiding another 9/11 is as important to our literal survival as a species as getting the birthrate way the hell down. Marriage equality–a same-sex cis couple doesn’t have the risk of unwanted pregnancy the way a mixed-sex cis couple does–and sex ed contraception abortion.

  • Ursula L

    I don’t feel like gay marriage is as important to our literal survival as a nation as not having another 9/11.  

    For heaven’s sake, 9/11 wasn’t that bad.  By the standards of Europe during WWII, it was a good day.  And it was just one, day, not year after year of the same.  

    9/11 didn’t threaten the US as a nation at all.  It was heartbreaking and shocking, but it was also very self-limiting.  

    Treating 9/11 as a threat to the nation, however, was damaging to the nation.  It got us involved in costly and pointless wars, hijacked diplomacy, and made it clear to the world that the only way to protect yourself from arbitrary US aggression was to become a nuclear power.  

    The US has done worse than 9/11 to others, countless times. It continues to engage in behavior that makes 9/11 look small scale.  

    The world would be a better place if it didn’t have the massive overreaction and destruction that the US’s post-9/11 temper tantrum caused.  Even if it means that some time in the future, something similar to 9/11 happens to the US again.    

    A just and proportional response to the destruction caused by two dozen people with box cutters and a clever lie  doesn’t include multiple wars.  

  • hidden_urchin

    Yeah, I find it interesting to contrast the US response to 9/11 with Norway’s response to Breivik.  That country seems to be working damn hard to make sure that its response does not errode its cultural values. 

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Given the USA’s behavior after discovering the Murrah building bomber was white (Timothy McVeigh), one wonders what the government would have done had it been conclusively proven that the 9/11 hijackers had been white, right-wing militia members.

    It’s always easy to be ~understanding~ and ~measured~ when the people who cause a major tragedy happen to be from the same country as you.

  • hapax

     Behold the self-proclaimed “libertarian” in action!

    Forget about Chris Hadrick’s inability to care about our “liberties” to control our bodies, our health, our love lives, our joint resources, etc., because they are “unimportant” compared to economic “liberties” — MARKETS JUST WANT TO BE FREEEEEEE!!!

    Zie wants to dictate where our money goes just as much as the most tyrannical tax-and-spend government:

    People should spend their paychecks on good schools for their kids and good food.

    except that he wants us to be legally blocked from doing it in the most efficient, effective way possible — banding together to pool our money, and choosing competent experts who will decide how it will be spent, and how we can ensure those schools and food are actually “good.”

    Why do you hate freedom, Chris?

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    I don’t feel like gay marriage personal liberty is as important to our literal survival as a nation as not having another 9/11 temporary safety.

    Fixed that for you.

  • Lori

    I favor free market solutions to all these things. 

    And I favor having the ability to fix things by doing magic by wiggling my nose like Samantha on Bewitched. My favored solution is almost exactly as likely to work as yours.

  • http://twitter.com/lesterhalfjr Chris Hadrick

    “And I don’t feel like avoiding another 9/11 is as important to our literal survival as a species as getting the birthrate way the hell down.”

    plenty of people who have abortions go on to have families. and having less people won’t make us survive qute the contrary. google economies of scale.

    “Whole damn continent’s Native American territory”

    it was. we fought them for it and won.

    “Don’t their kids deserve good schools and good food?”

    Yes and they don’t have them now.

    the inspecting food thing is a canard anyway.  people want their food inspected. No one would be like “have this uninspected food!!” no would want it. People would pay to have a sevice that inspected places of their own volition. we wouldn’t have to go through the state to do it. gotta go back to work.   

    I go there then drop back to make my lunch.

  • EllieMurasaki

    plenty of people who have abortions go on to have families.

    Shockingly, I know this. Someone who gets pregnant three times and has two kids and an abortion is not someone who has three kids, and since the replacement rate is two kids and change, she’s doing her part to keep the birthrate down.

    having less people won’t make us survive qute the contrary.

    The planet probably already has more people than it can support.

    we fought them for it and won.

    Fuck you.

    People would pay to have a sevice that inspected places of their own volition.

    We do pay to have such a service. We call it ‘taxation’.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    it was. we fought them for it and won.

    So you’re in favor of wars-of-chocie for the purpose of conquest. Good to know. 

    No one would be like “have this uninspected food!!” no would want it. People would pay to have a sevice that inspected places of their own volition

    Exactly like they did at the turn of the century, which is why we didn’t need the FDA. 

    Oh, wait.

    Get it through your head that the choice isn’t between “Throw the dice, or pay for an efficient private agency to inspect your food.”  It’s between “Pay every dime you have for  unsafe food, or starve.”

    google economies of scale.

    Hey. you know what would be a good economy of scale? If we had one large food inspection service for the whole country, and everyone who benefitted from it had to pay a share of the cost to run it. 

    You know what would be a good economy of scale? If we all went in together on health insurance so that everyone was covered, the risk was spread as thin as possible, and we didn’t get stuck with the bill when uninsured poor people had to go to the emergency room. 

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Chris Hadrick thus spake:

    plenty of people who have abortions go on to have families.

    Their decision. Not yours. Butt the fuck out.

    and
    having less people won’t make us survive qute the contrary. google
    economies of scale.

    You mean the same economies of scale that let one worker do what it took five to do a generation ago with older technology? You mean like that?

    Because it sure damn well seems to me like that means … *SHOCK* we don’t need as many people????

    *GASP* SAY IT AIN’T SO.

    “Whole damn continent’s Native American territory”

    it was. we fought them for it and won.

    Sure, with asymmetric warfare. The Indians could get guns, but the white settlers could get even more and on top of that field not just guns but artillery cannon as well.

    Very few partisan type armies have ever won against a numerically superior opponent. Josip Broz Tito is remembered partly because he successfully executed exactly that scenario of asymmetric warfare.

    “We” didn’t “fight them” fair and square, that’s for sure. And on top of that, the governments of the day in the USA and Canada compounded the humiliation by dumping the surviving Indians onto reserve land, most of which at the time was marginally productive or otherwise just not very desirable to white settlers.

  • http://twitter.com/lesterhalfjr Chris Hadrick

    Ellie- “We call it ‘taxation’.”

    thats not of our own volition that’s coerced.

    “Someone who gets pregnant three times and has two kids and an abortion is not someone who has three kids”

    They could have an abortion then have a dozen kids.  There is an area the size of our entire country in Siberia that is empty tundra. there is plenty of room in the world.  Europe is dying off because they are following your advice.


    we fought them for it and won.
    Fuck you.”

    that’s what happened though. israel is trying to do the same thing with the Palestinians but it’s not gonna work.

    “do a generation ago with older technology? You mean like that?
    Because it sure damn well seems to me like that means … *SHOCK* we don’t need as many people????
    *GASP* SAY IT AIN’T SO.”

    that’s not what economies of scale means. and there isn’t a finite amount of work for people to do. it expands.    We aren’t all out of work because of the advances in technology of the past.

    “compounded the humiliation by dumping the surviving Indians onto reserve land, most of which at the time was marginally productive or otherwise just not very desirable to white settlers.”

    so give your house to an indian. no ones stopping you.

    ursula- “For heaven’s sake, 9/11 wasn’t that bad.”

     oh not it all. it was only the hugest spectacle in the history of mankind. and now we have to go through TSA screening and pay billions for the DHS and it we’ve been occupying Afghanistan for a decade +

    “By the standards of Europe during WWII, it was a good day”

    this sounds lke the people who tried to write off the carange in iraq. “oh historically it’s not that bad. more people are killed in Detroit each year”.

    “The US has done worse than 9/11 to others, countless times. It continues to engage in behavior that makes 9/11 look small scale.”

    no argument here.   

     

     

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Fair enough about economies of scale, but given that on the one hand we can produce more with the less people, and on the other hand, populations are stabilizing at the total 7 billionish people mark, does it really look like we need to worry about diseconomies of scale any time soon? We’ve got a LOT of people who want to buy food, clothes and transportation if nothing else.

  • EllieMurasaki

     Ellie- “We call it ‘taxation’.”

    thats not of our own volition that’s coerced.

    If red-state women needing abortions are free to move to blue states, surely you are free to move to a country that doesn’t tax. I hear Somalia is lovely this time of year. What’s that you say? Somalia has a crap economy? You know, you’re absolutely right. So stay in the US where taxes pay for halfway decent roads and schools and cops and regulations and food stamps and all the things that make the economy go while preserving consumer rights and public health and safety–but know that by staying, you are consenting to pay taxes.

    They could have an abortion then have a dozen kids.

    Your point?

    There is an area the size of our entire country in Siberia that is empty
    tundra. there is plenty of room in the world.

    Because tundra makes such excellent farmland. I’m not worried about elbow room. I’m worried about freshwater supply, ethical food production and distribution, and carbon footprint.

    so give your house to an indian. no ones stopping you.

    One, Native American, or First Nations. If you absolutely must use the I word for someone who isn’t from the appropriate South Asian nation, American Indian. Call them what they want to be called. Two, my landlords are sure to adore that suggestion.
    No that’s what I want to do. I lvoe that idea. We aren’t doing that now. The state doesn’t care about are kids or their health.

    SCHIP, dumbass. And the libertarian approach to health care wouldn’t do our children any favors.

    People aren’t going to buy rotten food when there are plenty of people
    willing to sell them good food. If all the other places were selling
    gaarbage anyone could make a fortune selling edible class a food.

    I am not a food safety expert. I do not want to have to be a food safety expert. I want to know that there is no chicken shit in my chicken without having to raise the chicken myself or pay an extortionate amount to a private company to inspect the chicken before I buy it. I also want to know that there is no chicken shit in the chicken McD’s serves or my kid’s school serves. Take away the USDA inspectors and there will be chicken shit in our chicken.

    No one ever died from not being able to get legally married.

    Maybe not–by which I mean, I am sure people have but am too tired to Google–but I am personally acquainted with someone who can afford the meds to manage her chronic pain because and only because she’s on her wife’s health insurance, which is only possible because they’re legally married. (If marijuana were legal, she could manage her pain with that and save everybody much money, but it’s not so she can’t.)

  • http://twitter.com/lesterhalfjr Chris Hadrick

    sorry to blab on but

    “The world would be a better place if it didn’t have the massive overreaction and destruction that the US’s post-9/11 temper tantrum caused. Even if it means that some time in the future, something similar to 9/11 happens to the US again.    ”

    please don’t “get it twisted” as they say. I’m for ending our military empire to prevent future 9/11’s. I’m not a hawk, I’m the total and complete opposite

    “banding together to pool our money, and choosing competent experts who will decide how it will be spent, and how we can ensure those schools and food are actually “good.””

    No that’s what I want to do. I lvoe that idea. We aren’t doing that now. The state doesn’t care about are kids or their health.

  • Lori

     

    I’m not a hawk, I’m the total and complete opposite 

    “Logic-challenged ideologue” is not the opposite of “hawk”.

  • hapax

     

    hapax- “banding together to pool our money, and choosing competent
    experts who will decide how it will be spent, and how we can ensure
    those schools and food are actually “good.””

    No that’s what I want to do. I lvoe that idea. We aren’t doing that now. The state doesn’t care about are kids or their health.

    and I’m not telling people how to spend their money, I’m saying
    certain things shouldn’t be made cheaper and others more epensive by
    subisidies and regulation. let everything cost what it costs.

    /blink.  blink./

    You … are a very silly and ignorant person, do you know that?

    To even begin to unpack the contradictions, miscomprehensions and absurdities in the two paragraphs of yours that I quoted would require complete textbooks of economics, civics, history…

    I apologize to everyone else for watering the potted plant.  I’ll try not to engage with it again.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

    I favor free market solutions to all these things. No coercian.

    Because as we all know, government is the only possible source of coercion in a market.

  • http://twitter.com/lesterhalfjr Chris Hadrick

    neutrino- I don’t think people having too many babies is a big problem, maybe in the third world it is because it exacerbates all their other issues .

    hapax- you’re describing anarchy! People doing those things of their own volition for their own betterment or the bettermnet of their family or community. Washington long ago stopped being in any way reflective of that.  They’ve morphed into simply a band of thugs who take a portion of your paycheck for whatever they deem appropriate.  Why do I have to pay for the occupation of Afghanistan when I can barely pay for my health coverage? because thats what washington wants. and thats what all the horrible candidates want.  from both parties.

    http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-sr380/show

    ^ look at the co sponsers under lindsey graham.  very bi partisan.

    If washington started building a huge pyramid would that be okay?

     I’m never gonna go to afghanistan! Why am I working at my job to send money there?

  • http://twitter.com/lesterhalfjr Chris Hadrick

    “o you’re in favor of wars-of-chocie for the purpose of conquest. Good to know. ”

    no i’m just being honest abuot what happened. We took the land from the indians. I’m not saying it was good or bad.

    “It’s between “Pay every dime you have for unsafe food, or starve.”

    there’s a market for good food. People aren’t going to buy rotten food when there are plenty of people willing to sell them good food. If all the other places were selling gaarbage anyone could make a fortune selling edible class a food. at the turn of the century there was a much lower standard of living and things like refrigeration and preservation were colliding with mass consumption and whatnot.

    ” If we all went in together on health insurance so that everyone was covered,”

    you know what wouldn’t be? worst of both worlds corporatized mandated Obamacare. the costs of medical things have been spiraling out of control for a long time. Their game of getting healthy younger people to in essence bail the whole system out isn’t the anser, it’s just papering over the problems.

    I support all personal liberty, i just can’t really get worked up about gay marriage. No one ever died from not being able to get legally married.    

     

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Ok, food.

    Do you seriously think that by magic, people will keep making totally safe food with no impartial agency to check the food out? It’s like this “we don’t need unions anymore” talk. Or “we don’t need to vaccinate anymore” business.

    Some things NEED to have regulatory structures PERMANENTLY in place!

    In the case of vaccines we MUST keep herd immunity. Lose herd immunity, lose all the years of hard work it has  taken to eradicate a disease and it will come back. So we must vaccinate even though it appears we do not need to.

    Lose the unions, and all the things unions fought against will come back the instant some bright and unethical business owner realizes the disincentives are gone. Like, say, coercing unpaid overtime out of employees by insinuating that negative job reviews will be given to those who seem insufficiently enthusiastic.

    Lose the food inspectors, and we WILL start seeing adulterated food again. Why? Because even if a thousand-plus people get sick and there’s all that negative publicity, it won’t matter. People need to eat and they will not stop buying Biggo Corp’s food, especially if it’s the only player in town and can edge out all the new entrants.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

     

    No one ever died from not being able to get legally
    married.   

    Liar.

    These people are fictional, but this has happened, and CONTINUES to happen, to real, non-hypothetical people because of same-sex domestic partners being denied coverage that they would have received if they had been able to legally marry their partner.

  • http://twitter.com/lesterhalfjr Chris Hadrick

    this is all nitpicking. I’m not a Ron Paul guy because I hate tax funded food inspection, I support him because he is anti war and anti corporatism/ fed reserve/ other economic stuff.

    The govt has 4 trillion dollars to spend, of course they are going to spend a few of those dollars in the right place. So much of it goes elsewhere though. too much.

    the government doesn’t get a zero for the job they’re doing, but they get an F.

     

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    I’m not a Ron Paul guy because I hate tax funded food inspection, I support him because he is anti war and anti corporatism/ fed reserve/ other economic stuff.

    I’d be more inclined to believe your insistence that your primary interest is Paul’s anti-wat platform if you didn’t spend the vast majority of your energy here in a wank about libertarian economics. Or if the couple of times you’ve raised warfare independently, it’s been expressed above all else as something that costs you money.

  • Lori

     

    this is all nitpicking.  

    Things other people care about, which do not advance your ideological agenda: nitpicking

    Things you care about because they advance your ideological agenda:Freedom!

    Thanks ever so for clearly that up for us. [eyeroll]

  • Kubricks_Rube

    “No one ever died from not being able to get legally married.”

    This “no one ever died from…” formulation is rich coming from someone who thinks that civil rights should have been won through the free market and that women’s health is just not that interesting and that people will know which meat to buy based on who ends up in the hospital and that that hospital is under no obligation to help them in the first place and that FDR was a menace at home and abroad and that principle trumps not just compassion but all practical considerations every single time they come in conflict.

  • http://twitter.com/lesterhalfjr Chris Hadrick

    I agree I don’t emphasize anti war stuff enough. it’s mostly because of where I am right now in terms of what I’m interested in. I went through a big foreign policy thing a few years ago.  it can’t be emphasized enough how expensive our think tank designed foreign policy is and how grotesque that whole aspect of our country has become. It’s insane. That’s not hyperbole, our military budget is INSANE.  any fool can see that.

    What’s really stupid is people think they are trading liberty for security. it’s a joke. They aren’t getting security. Theres way too much information for anyone to go through and find out about.  I’ve studied foreign policy and economic policy and I think it’s all smoke and mirrors. we don’t need a foreign policy or an economic policy.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Theres way too much information for anyone to go through and find out
    about.

    Now you understand why I want the government inspecting my food and consumer products.

    I’ve studied foreign policy and economic policy and I think it’s
    all smoke and mirrors. we don’t need a foreign policy or an economic
    policy.

    One of the two of us failed history and economics, and my high school transcript says it wasn’t me.

    Also, I made some points upthread, right before your “this is all nitpicking” comment. Please address them.

  • Lori

    What’s really stupid is people think they are trading liberty for
    security. it’s a joke. They aren’t getting security.

    No, we aren’t getting security. Having fewer civil rights increases neither liberty nor security. I utterly fail to understand why you can’t grasp that.

    Theres way too much
    information for anyone to go through and find out about.  

    And yet you want people to research their own food safety? What?

    I’ve studied foreign policy and economic policy and I think it’s all
    smoke and mirrors. we don’t need a foreign policy or an economic policy. 

    That is quite possibly the single most ridiculous thing you’ve said here. And that’s really saying something. It’s clearly not worth it to try to get into this with you, but I will just note that it is not possible for a nation state not to have a foreign policy or an economic policy. Not. Possible. The fact that you apparently don’t understand that makes it clear that however much you may have studied you didn’t actually learn all that much.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X