Tuesday morning links

There are 2 million Syrian refugees in Turkey, 1 million in Lebanon, and half-a-million in Jordan. There are about 2 million refugees in the Gulf countries, who have also donated more than $2 billion towards refugee relief.

#1 Zachriel on 2016-12-13 07:04 (Reply)

OK, that's got to be one of the under-reported stories of the decade. Where can we get some insight into how the Gulf States are coping with their influx of refugees? I'd like to think they're being treated better than the Gulf States have treated the Palestinians.

#1.1 Mike Anderson (Link) on 2016-12-13 09:10 (Reply)

Mike Anderson: that's got to be one of the under-reported stories of the decade.

The World Bank reports that 1,000,000 Syrians resided in Saudi Arabia in 2013, a whopping 795 percent increase over 2010.

#1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-12-13 14:22 (Reply)

We should send all the refugees we took in back to the Middle East and Africa. Clearly they are happier there in a country where they can freely abuse women and kill anyone who disagrees with them.

#1.2 IdahoBob on 2016-12-13 09:26 (Reply)

Which those countries are trying to get rid of.

Which would be fine with many of those refugees who are holding out for Sweden and Germany.

#1.3 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2016-12-13 10:31 (Reply)

QUOTE:

"At this late date, anyone who fails to realize that the US government and its media accomplices generate fake news as a matter of course is a dim bulb indeed."

The first step in the alt-right's disinformation campaign is to redefine "fake news" so no one can tell the difference.

#2 Zachriel on 2016-12-13 07:07 (Reply)

You're going to need a lot of therapy.

#2.1 Dale on 2016-12-13 07:26 (Reply)

Your efforts at projection are weak. You're not very good at this.

#2.2 DrTorch on 2016-12-13 08:48 (Reply)

Name someone, anyone on the alt-right (David Duke doesn't count) whatever the hell that is. This is just a new little catch phrase that the left has invented to disparage all that don't toe the lefty line. The Zach borg has already made sweeping statements about those on this blog. Remember Zach? You tried to say that this blog is full of racist comments and people. I called you out on it, and you where suppose to provide twenty five examples. You provided one.

The Zach Borg is part of the disinformation campaign. They work for George Soros. They don't even live in America. They are seditionaries.

#2.3 B Hammer on 2016-12-13 11:03 (Reply)

B Hammer: Name someone, anyone on the alt-right (David Duke doesn't count) whatever the hell that is.

Richard Spencer coined the term alt-right, a loose group characterized by white identity and a rejection of mainstream conservatism.

B Hammer: made sweeping statements about those on this blog.

What sweeping statement? Please be specific.

#2.3.1 Zachriel on 2016-12-13 14:27 (Reply)

Well, thanks for providing a name. A man found in the gutter of civilization, from the magazine that pioneered work in fake news: Rolling Stone! The University of Virginia gang rape story.

As to the matter of sweeping statements: if I could search my name in the comments sections, I could quickly find it. I can’t remember if it was in September or October. I do remember it was on a weekend. The Borg might have had personnel turnover, so one of you that posts under the title Zachriel, currently employed by George Soros, may not be working on this blog anymore. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt. But I am pretty sure you know exactly what I am talking about.

#2.3.1.1 B. Hammer on 2016-12-13 18:55 (Reply)

B. Hammer: A man found in the gutter of civilization, from the magazine that pioneered work in fake news: Rolling Stone! The University of Virginia gang rape story.

Bad reporting is not fake news.

In any case, Spencer wasn't "found" in the Rolling Stone. He's been around for quite some time. It was Breitbart, whose publisher, Steve Bannon who said Breitbart was the voice of the alt-Right, which named Spencer as the intellectual core of the alt-Right.

B. Hammer: But I am pretty sure you know exactly what I am talking about.

We said exactly "a significant number have exhibited racial animus." You reworded this as "the blog is full of" such comments.

Just today: Hood Math 101
If Jamarcus has two bottles of purple drank and his baby mama, deShawntre has $3.26 left on her EBT card, and de'Franquez buys two Black and Milds at the Arab store how long will it take L'il Petey to finish his time in Soledad?

#2.3.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-12-14 09:17 (Reply)

Maybe if you would honestly look at the many fake news stories during the last year, you would be able to see it. But you are so steeped in liberal thinking, you are blind to it. Let's tick off some fake news, shall we?

1) Report that there was going to be a Muslim registry. Not true.

2) Hate crimes on the rise due to Trump. Not true.

3) A You Tube video sparked the attack that led to Benghazi. Not true.

4) Gang rape story in Rolling Stone. Not true.

5) Dan Rather's famous fake document, which brought down his career.

I could keep going. But notice these all have something in common: put out by either our own government or mainstream news sources. Not the alt-right.

I could also remind you that CNN literally told its audience that it was illegal to read the emails posted at Wikileaks. You call that a news source I can trust? Really???

#2.4 MissT on 2016-12-13 11:27 (Reply)

My favorite was Obama personally telling illegals through a Spanish language TV station they could vote without repercussions, because they were really the same as citizens.

#2.4.1 Jim on 2016-12-13 12:55 (Reply)

MissT: 1) Report that there was going to be a Muslim registry. Not true.

Q. "But for Muslims specifically, how do you actually get them registered in a database?"
Trump: "It would be just good management. What you have to do is good management procedures and we can do that."

Q. "Would they have to be legally in this database?"
Trump: "They have to be — they have to be."

MissT: 2) Hate crimes on the rise due to Trump. Not true.

According to the FBI, hate crimes against Muslims increased 67% from 2015 to 2016. Incidents of intimidation have also increased.

MissT: 3) A You Tube video sparked the attack that led to Benghazi. Not true.

You might want to be specific with that. What news agency?

MissT: 4) Gang rape story in Rolling Stone. Not true.

The report was false, but that's not the same as "fake news". Just because a report is wrong doesn't make it fake news.

MissT: 5) Dan Rather's famous fake document, which brought down his career.

Again, the report was false, but that's not the same as fake news. Just because a report is wrong doesn't make it fake news.

#2.4.2 Zachriel on 2016-12-13 14:46 (Reply)

You don't know what fake news refers to, that's why you keep trying to justify the fake news stories that MSM has printed for years.

Just one more time when you post despite being ignorant of a subject.

#2.4.2.1 DrTorch on 2016-12-13 14:53 (Reply)

Fake news consists of deliberate hoaxes, propaganda, and disinformation. Being wrong doesn't make something fake news.

#2.4.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-12-13 15:04 (Reply)

OK, so Dan Rather and friends fabricated false "National Guard reports" which they then said were true. It was conclusively shown they were faked Word documents, not typewritten documents from the Vietnam era. (Dan "The Liar" Rather still claims they are real, of course, despite the fact that there were no typewriters during the Vietnam period that could type like that.) Dan Rather and co-conspirators came out with the story on the eve of the presidential election to try influence the election, but fortunately sharp-eyed alternative media quickly figured out the docs were faked (folks you would now call the "alt-right"). CBS denied that there was a scheme to influence the election through the fabricated reports, but Dan Rather got fired for what he did and has been unemployable since.

But to you that's not fake news.

#2.4.2.1.1.1 Jim on 2016-12-13 15:28 (Reply)

Jim: so Dan Rather and friends fabricated false "National Guard reports" which they then said were true

That is incorrect. The documents were provided by former Texas Army National Guard officer Lt. Col. Bill Burkett. CBS retracted the story, and Rather stated, "If I knew then what I know now, I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question."

#2.4.2.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-12-13 15:52 (Reply)

Zach really is hopeless... his perspective betrays a certain state of non compos mentis... as if he has his talking points delivered in the inbox at dawn, and must review and post by days end in order to earn his breadcrumbs.

Maggie's Farm readers are lucky to have the contrast between buggy and balanced available at no charge.

Thanks, Zach! Don't go changin'!

#2.4.2.1.1.1.1.1 The Distributist (Link) on 2016-12-13 17:52 (Reply)

CBS was dragged kicking and screaming by the truth, and has never admitted the documents were fakes, only that they had failed to sufficiently authenticate them.

And Rather's apology was rather Clintonian, wasn't it? "I apologize for getting caught, if I knew I was going to get caught I wouldn't have done it."

In fact, Rather still asserts the documents are real even if they are fake--"truthy" as you would say:

"Dan Rather continues to stand by the story, and in subsequent interviews has stated that he believes that the documents have never conclusively been proven to be forgeries — and that even if the documents are false, the underlying story is true.[124]"

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

In fact I think the concept of truthy was invented by the Rathergate scandal.

#2.4.2.1.1.1.1.2 Jim on 2016-12-13 17:52 (Reply)

Jim: CBS was dragged kicking and screaming by the truth, and has never admitted the documents were fakes, only that they had failed to sufficiently authenticate them.

They admit they were not authenticated. Rather and several producers were pushed out. That's not how fake news works.

#2.4.2.1.1.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2016-12-14 08:55 (Reply)

We stole the election. How does it feel, loser?

Going to do something about that?

#2.5 Boris Badenov on 2016-12-13 12:47 (Reply)

"Our fake news is fake but accurate! Yours is reprehensible! Any attempt to equate the two reflects a deterioration in the capacity to distinguish right from wrong!"

Seriously, what a wanker. Do you honestly think you've retained any credibility in making arguments in this area?

#2.6 Texan99 on 2016-12-13 13:29 (Reply)

Fake news means deliberate hoaxes, propaganda, and disinformation. Being wrong doesn't make something fake news.

#2.6.1 Zachriel on 2016-12-13 14:47 (Reply)

"Fake news consists of deliberate hoaxes, propaganda, and disinformation. Being wrong doesn't make something fake news." Are you saying the Killian Papers of "Rathergate" were not a deliberate hoax? Was NBC's Dateline not engaging in disinformation when they rigged GM trucks to explode? It is very simple to look at "sources" you disagree with politically and say "it's fake news". Breitbart? Fake news. Daily Caller? Fake news. How about you give us some examples of left leaning sites that you would concede are "fake news"?

#2.6.1.1 BornSouthern on 2016-12-13 15:39 (Reply)

BornSouthern: Are you saying the Killian Papers of "Rathergate" were not a deliberate hoax?

Certainly not by CBS, which retracted the story and ousted the reporter and the producer.

BornSouthern: Was NBC's Dateline not engaging in disinformation when they rigged GM trucks to explode?

That would be a better example. NBC ousted the president of the news division, along with several producers, and instituted new policies to prevent a recurrence. That means the article was fake news, but the organization is not.

BornSouthern: Breitbart? Fake news.

Not necessarily, but often enough, and rarely if ever retracting even the most blatant falsehoods.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/breitbart/statements
http://www.snopes.com/tag/breitbart/

#2.6.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-12-13 16:03 (Reply)

Snopes is no more a trustworthy site than FoxNews is trusted by the left. Snopes is run by leftists.

#2.6.1.1.1.1 Dangerous Dean on 2016-12-13 23:54 (Reply)

Don't rely on Snopes, but verify the claims. For instance, check the claim about counties that Trump won versus Clinton.

http://www.snopes.com/trump-won-3084-of-3141-counties-clinton-won-57/

Sure, Breitbart may have just engaged in poor reporting. But when they were fact-checked, did they correct their report? No. They didn't. They stuck with the falsehood, which becomes a lie when the claim is no longer tenable. Frankly, they don't care, because their readers don't care.

#2.6.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-12-14 09:26 (Reply)

"Being wrong doesn't make something fake news."

That's not what we heard about Bush's reliance on reports of Iraqi WMD.

#2.6.1.2 Texan99 on 2016-12-13 19:40 (Reply)

Texan99: That's not what we heard about Bush's reliance on reports of Iraqi WMD.

The problem with the Bush Administration is that they ignored contrary evidence because they were so sure of themselves.

QUOTE:

The aide {to George Bush} said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

#2.6.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2016-12-14 09:20 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Top U.S. spy agency has not embraced CIA assessment on Russia hacking - sources

To be clear, they all agree that Russia hacked the DNC, then leaked the information in such as way as to maximize disruption of the U.S. elections. They disagree over Russia's precise motivation concerning the leaks. More than likely they didn't think Trump could win, but that they could weaken a future Clinton presidency because the Republicans would play right along with the forever-investigation. The effect was certainly to help Trump.

#3 Zachriel on 2016-12-13 07:19 (Reply)

because the Republicans would play right along with the forever-investigation

You mean like what the Democrats are doing right now?

#3.1 Christopher B on 2016-12-13 08:03 (Reply)

Christopher B: You mean like what the Democrats are doing right now?

There's nothing to indicate that Democrats intend on forever-investigations. They don't even have the capability, so that point is moot in any case.

Interesting note: The Benghazi special congressional investigation just ended their work, an investigation which lasted longer than the investigations of 9-11, Pearl Harbor, or the JFK assassination. They were unable to come up with a bipartisan conclusion. Wonder why they ended the investigation?

#3.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-12-13 14:52 (Reply)

Re: The press's fake news story that the Russians hacked the DNC:

QUOTE:

The Kremlin has rejected the hacking accusations, while the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has previously said the DNC leaks were not linked to Russia. A second senior official cited by the Washington Post conceded that intelligence agencies did not have specific proof that the Kremlin was “directing” the hackers, who were said to be one step removed from the Russian government.
Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims “bullshit”, adding: “They are absolutely making it up.”
“I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.
“If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIA’s statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States.
“America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it’s not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever.”

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/

#3.2 mudbug on 2016-12-13 10:17 (Reply)

mudbug: The press's fake news story that the Russians hacked the DNC

That is incorrect. The source of the information is the U.S. intelligence community consisting of 17 separate agencies, as well as private cyber-organizations. It is not fake news to accurately report the publicly released findings of the U.S. intelligence community.

Joint Statement from the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security: "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations."

#3.2.1 Zachriel on 2016-12-13 15:06 (Reply)

So is Craig Murray and Julian Assange are lying?

#3.2.1.1 mudbug on 2016-12-13 18:43 (Reply)

mudbug: So is Craig Murray and Julian Assange are lying?

Or simply misled.

Sure, 17 intelligence agencies of the U.S. government could be wrong, but they are more likely correct than not, especially considering their findings are supported by independent cyber-organizations who have reached the same conclusions.

QUOTE:

“If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIA’s statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States.
“America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it’s not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever.”

U.S. intelligence points to Fancy Bear, which are not in the U.S.

#3.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-12-14 09:01 (Reply)

Z: Or simply misled.

Or you're happy to drink the Kool-Aid. You will take the word of a political appointee with no corroborating evidence over the word of two people who claim to know the leaker and who have no obvious reason to lie.

#3.2.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2016-12-14 09:24 (Reply)

mudbug: You will take the word of a political appointee with no corroborating evidence

A political appointee? You mean the findings of 17 U.S. intelligence agencies, as well as independent cyber-organizations, as well as details concerning the Podesta spoof?

#3.2.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-12-14 09:30 (Reply)

"The source of the information is the U.S. intelligence community consisting of 17 separate agencies"

That is an absolute and intentional lie. Prove it. Give us the exact comments/report by each of those agencies to the CIA and cite the sources of these reports.

You won't and can't. You are simply mouthing what you have been told and have no clue who has said what on this subject including the CIA that you claim to be quoting.

One thing is for certain about this: None of the talking heads, politicians and MSM have any exact information about what was said by the 17 agencies or the CIA. If they did they would print exactly that instead of mouthing inferences and uncited claims. It is ALL propaganda, all of it. Anyone saying that they know that Russia hacked the election is lying and knows that they are lying. They are lying to spread fear uncertainty and doubt.

#3.2.1.2 SweetPea on 2016-12-14 15:38 (Reply)

SweetPea: That is an absolute and intentional lie. Prove it. Give us the exact comments/report by each of those agencies to the CIA and cite the sources of these reports.

Joint Statement from the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security: "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations."

Members of the IC plus the Office of the Director of National Intelligence make seventeen.

#3.2.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2016-12-14 16:21 (Reply)

Office of the Director of National Intelligence: "The U.S. Intelligence Community is a coalition of 17 agencies and organizations, including the ODNI, within the Executive Branch that work both independently and collaboratively to gather and analyze the intelligence necessary to conduct foreign relations and national security activities."

#3.2.1.2.2 Zachriel on 2016-12-14 17:07 (Reply)

Office of the Director of National Intelligence

#3.2.1.2.2.1 Zachriel on 2016-12-15 08:40 (Reply)

Zach, Zach, Zach, you've changed your story again.

#3.3 Jim on 2016-12-13 12:59 (Reply)

Our position has been consistent.

#3.3.1 Zachriel on 2016-12-13 15:02 (Reply)

consistently inconsistent.

you change your position every hour.

#3.3.1.1 Will Bithers on 2016-12-13 17:10 (Reply)

Dear Zach-un-real:

No doubt the DNC was hacked. No doubt info was leaked. No doubt that any Hillary supporter that heard said leaked info did not change their head and vote for Trump. As smart as you think you are, you people are dumber than a box of rocks. The thing about the hacks is that I don't know and you don't either.

At this point, what difference does it make? We alt-righters are just a-gonna sit here and thump our Holy Bibles and clean our wicked guns and wait for the Second Coming.

If voting made any difference we wouldn't be allowed to do it. I'm sure that you would rather vote Rooskie style: one candidate, 100% voter turnout, total landslide victory. Hooray for The Party.

Us true-alt-righters don't give a shi-ite for Trump but we didn't give two shi-ites for Clinton--there you have it in a nutshell.

And, by the by, please define alt-right. What is it, where did it come from, has it been hiding? Have we always been here and didn't know it? Are they all deplorable? Help me here as I am having an identity crisis. I thought I was just a good citizen.

Until your enlightenment,

red

#4 tennesseered on 2016-12-13 09:12 (Reply)

tennesseered: No doubt the DNC was hacked. No doubt info was leaked.

Glad we're in agreement. U.S. intelligence has determined it was hacked by organizations close to the Russian government.

tennesseered: No doubt that any Hillary supporter that heard said leaked info did not change their head and vote for Trump.

Perhaps not, but they may well have stayed home.

tennesseered: At this point, what difference does it make?

Perhaps the American people should know if there are covert operators from adversary governments trying to undermine their electoral system.

#4.1 Zachriel on 2016-12-13 15:10 (Reply)

What amazes me is that the Rooskies were were so conniving, so diabolical, so cunning as to let Hillary win the popular vote yet let Trump win the Electoral College. I suppose it was just a chance that Putin had to take and it worked! Or maybe it was the Chinese or North Koreans...maybe Mexico or Iran?

Zach-un-real, you still don't get it, do you?

#4.1.1 tennesseered on 2016-12-13 16:08 (Reply)

tennesseered: What amazes me is that the Rooskies were were so conniving, so diabolical, so cunning as to let Hillary win the popular vote yet let Trump win the Electoral College.

We know the Russians hacked and leaked the information in order to interfere with the U.S. election. Their motives can't be read directly, but we know they leaked information only on Democrats, not Republicans, so that implies they were attempting to weaken Democrats. The American people were played. Again.

#4.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-12-14 08:47 (Reply)

Wait wait Zachie baby, you change your position more frequently than a stop light changes color. Here above (#3) you said:

"More than likely they didn't think Trump could win, but that they could weaken a future Clinton presidency because the Republicans would play right along with the forever-investigation."

So you were saying they weren't trying to affect the election, just to weaken Clinton's presidency.

And yet just a few more trolls later, and you are back to your original assertion that the Russians were trying to throw the election:

"Perhaps the American people should know if there are covert operators from adversary governments trying to undermine their electoral system."

You need to pick a horse and ride on it, Zach.

#4.1.2 Jim on 2016-12-13 18:07 (Reply)

Z: "More than likely they didn't think Trump could win, but that they could weaken a future Clinton presidency because the Republicans would play right along with the forever-investigation."

Z: "Perhaps the American people should know if there are covert operators from adversary governments trying to undermine their electoral system."

Those are not contradictory statements.

#4.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2016-12-14 08:56 (Reply)

"Millennials Spurn the Food That Will Feed the Future"

They should all read (providing that they are able to read) the story of Norman Borlaug--the Father of the Green Revolution.

#5 rocdoctom on 2016-12-13 12:17 (Reply)

One wonders if their attitude would change if food was scarce and expensive rather than cheap and abundant?

#5.1 feeblemind on 2016-12-13 12:27 (Reply)

Nailed it! The same can be said to all the food police out there.

#5.1.1 B. Hammer on 2016-12-13 12:54 (Reply)

GETTING IN BED WITH GOVERNMENT: Cronies, Kleptomaniacs and Criminals

QUOTE:

This is the real world. It is not going to change. The pendulum swings from the right to the left and back again, but smaller less intrusive government is not in the cards. Tax breaks are the carrots, while laws and regulations are the sticks used to keep big business and big government working in concert and reaping the rewards of a corporate fascist system. Do you ever wonder how life long congressmen, who never earned more than $170,000 per year, “retire” from government service as multi-millionaires? Do you ever wonder how one week after “retiring” from government service they land multi-million jobs with the big businesses they were supposed to regulate?

and

Trump’s selection of a former Goldman Sachs banker as his Treasury Secretary, the COO of Goldman Sachs as his chief economic advisor, and the CEO of Exxon Mobil as his Secretary of State should give you an inkling that Wall Street and big business will not face any decrease in influence or reduction in their well bought benefits. The narrative for their selection is they know how to get things done in the real world. That’s true. They know how to get things done benefiting their self interest.

Nothing has fundamentally changed in this game, except our team has the ball. Millions of Americans have put their faith in Trump to undo the tyranny inflicted on the country by Obama in the last eight years. They are putting their faith in Trump’s ability to use the government to solve problems created by giving the government too much power. Maybe he’ll succeed, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2016/12/getting-in-bed-with-government-cronies.html#more

#6 feeblemind on 2016-12-13 12:35 (Reply)

Prof. Hanson is a breath of fresh air in an academia gone awry. Take the time to watch his video. It's well worth the investment.

#7 jma on 2016-12-13 12:42 (Reply)

Agree. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall at the National Review meeting he mentioned.

I use to have such respect for that magazine. I subscribed for nearly twenty years. Then they went bat __ crazy over the Harriet Myers nomination.

#7.1 B. Hammer on 2016-12-13 13:01 (Reply)

RE Feeling bad about being in the wrong job

I'm looking for a career in the TransGender Division of the Human Relations Department for any Non-GMO Nonprofit based in NYC. I have a degree in GLQ Studies and have been a SJW since age five.

If anyone can give me advice, I'd appreciate it.

#8 I am not a snow flake! on 2016-12-13 12:57 (Reply)

They have ads on Craigslist that you can make $15 an hour as a community organizer (rent-a-mob member), or social media communicator (leftist internet troll).

Or you might just send a PM to Zach.

#8.1 Jim on 2016-12-13 13:09 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Tuesday, December 13. 2016

Tuesday morning links