We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Monday, December 10. 2018
Image: That was me.
POPE TO GAY PRIESTS: TAKE A HIKE
Progressive scolds are obsessed with destroying our holiday classics
MN Prof: Mary 'did not consent' to God impregnating her with Jesus
She most certainly did. See The Magnificat, idiot.
How the Principal Stole Christmas: 'I MUST Stop this Christmas from Coming! But HOW?'
NJ Doesn’t Say How It Will Enforce Magazine Confiscation After Court Upholds Law
Confiscate my Field and Stream?
What Happened When We Tried to Debate Immigration
It's not allowed
Higher Ed: The Diversity Mania Forges Ahead
Jordan Peterson update: The more they hate him, the more popular he becomes
Strand Bookstore: Wife of a Liberal Senator Gets ‘Mugged by Reality’
Definitely the most fun store in NYC
Student government demands NYU divest from any company ‘involved’ in violating human rights
Political correctness itself can be politically incorrect.
From a Liberal: Ten Signs Your Movement Is Evil
Dominique Sharpton Gets $95,000 for Spraining Her Ankle
Unions bosses fight losing battle to protect dues
Bill and Hillary Clinton Using Groupon to Boost Sagging Ticket Sales
What is Groupon?
Feds Discover Largest Oil, Natural-Gas Reserve in History
Incoming House Judiciary Chair Planning To End Probe Into FBI, DOJ
'Presidential harassment': Trump under unprecedented attack on multiple fronts
Comey’s confession: dossier not verified before, or after, FISA warrant
Just an excuse to spy on Americans
WILL TRUMP BE INDICTED FOR ALLEGED CAMPAIGN FINANCE VIOLATIONS?
Andrew C. McCarthy: Why Trump is likely to be indicted by Manhattan US Attorney
New Cuba law that artists say amounts to state censorship will be implemented gradually
Palestine: Social justice activist tortured and punished for going on hunger strike
Jamaica resorts covered up sexual assaults, silenced victims for years
They paid them off
Anti-Semitism: The Fast Track in Turkey to a Government Career?
In Latin America, Awash in Crime, Citizens Impose Their Own Brutal Justice. Mobs routinely kill suspected lawbreakers in Latin America, home of the world’s highest murder rate
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
If any of you live in NJ, we could discuss me purchasing your magazines. I wish I had the space to store yours until the law is repealed. 18 months in prison and up to $10,000 in fines or both. Yikes.
The purpose of these laws is to intimidate honest citizens. You only have to enforce it a few times and the citizens will get the message. The left (socialist/communist) must have gun control because their plans cannot succeed if we are free they will require that we are serfs.
The correct way for citizens to handle this is to test the law in court and bring it to the SCOTUS. Until and unless we do this the left leaning politicians will continue their inroads into our constitutional rights.
And when SCOUST upholds it? What's a freedom loving man to do?
One day you're an honest citizen, doing your best to stay on the right side of the law, the next day you are a criminal. And what have you done? Does the crime really fit the punishment? Seems like there is something in the Constitution about that. But the new Living Constitution? That is completely up to what the tyrants in robes decide it it is. Don't you just love democracy?
What the freedom loving citizen should do is act before it gets that bad. We elected the presidents who put anti-constitutional judges on the bench. We elected the legislators and congress that passed anti-constitutional laws. We have already screwed up that responsibility. There is still time to correct this in a lawful manner BUT it may well be that it is too late and/or not possible. Make no mistake the other side is organized and is working hard to take our constitutional rights from us. A good example of this is the 9th circuit court. Whenever an NGO dislikes a law or lower court ruling they take it to court in the 9th circuit. They judge shop by filing the case and if they don't get a judge they know to be sympathetic to them they withdraw and try again. They succeed because of this and we lose because we are not organized on not willing to fight for what we want.
There are two choices remaining assuming we continue to circle the drain: 1. Begin targeting judges, politicians and activists on the left. 2. Civil war. Do we have the guts for either of these choices??? I don't think so. I think that we will just sit in our comfortable chairs watching the country devolve into anarchy on the TV and complain to each other.
What is Groupon? (assuming this is a serious question)
Groupon is an online discount promotion site. It allows businesses to advertise deep discounts for products or services without putting those prices on their own website. You buy the discount or gift certificate from Groupon, and then present the receipt to the merchant when you purchase the product or use the service.
Says a lot they've got to go to Groupon to try to boost ticket sales.
I'd say her 'Expires By' date was 2016. She doesn't have much in the way of political capital any more. There's folks who venerate her - but her loss in 2016 destroyed almost all of her current and potential influence. And I think there's pretty much no chance she'll make it past the D primaries, no matter how much they manipulate the superdelegates. That was a trick they could do once - and the Bernie Bros will be screaming bloody murder if they try.
This one's for feeblemind and Zachriel in regard to their Brexit go-round in last Wednesday's Wednesday morning links:
European Court of Justice rules UK can unilaterally revoke Article 50 and halt Brexit
Not like leftists to throw sand in the gears at the 11th hour. Who knows, maybe Brexit sexually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford at some undetermined time and place in the past?
Thanks for thinking of me Bill.
I am not surprised. I still don't believe The Ruling Class, and particularly the bureaucracy wants Brexit to happen.
I readily concede that the Brexit may still go through, but I don't believe the contest is over.
How many times have we seen the will of the voters overturned by the judiciary or a bureaucratic rule?
You're welcome feeblemind.
I'm with you all the way: Brexit may very well go through in either a soft or hard manner, but the Ruling Class really seems to prefer that it not.
We will indeed see.
Bill Carson: This one's for feeblemind and Zachriel in regard to their Brexit go-round in last Wednesday's Wednesday morning links
Z: Not sure what else you can foresee, whether a hard Brexit or a mutually agreed upon soft Brexit. Another Brexit vote is unlikely. Even if there were another vote, it's not clear the EU would allow Britain to change directions at this late date. The legal mechanisms for Brexit are in motion.
That has now been clarified: The EU will allow Britain to reverse course and stay in the EU. It would be interesting if, after all the brouhaha, that Britain ended up staying in the EU. That still seems unlikely. Our original statement stands, given the update.
feeblemind: I still don't believe The Ruling Class, and particularly the bureaucracy wants Brexit to happen.
Most do not, as it will likely result in significant market disruption and a loss of GDP.
feeblemind: How many times have we seen the will of the voters overturned by the judiciary or a bureaucratic rule?
In Britain, parliament is the supreme authority.
The EU will allow Britain to reverse course and stay in the EU. It would be interesting if, after all the brouhaha, that Britain ended up staying in the EU. That still seems unlikely.
Did the European Court of Justice ruling increase or decrease the likelihood of Brexit occurring?
Bill Carson: Did the European Court of Justice ruling increase or decrease the likelihood of Brexit occurring?
Mostly, it increased uncertainty. However, on balance, it decreased the likelihood of Brexit because there is a small chance Britain may change directions. Parliament could do so unilaterally, but that would be so undemocratic that there would be a huge political reaction, and call into question British democracy. To avoid this, a new popular vote would be required. Re-voting on something already decided would also generate an adverse political reaction. We're still left with Brexit of some sort.
Meanwhile, UK Prime Minister Theresa May postpones Brexit deal vote
Zach thinks Brexit is a done deal.
I believe that the possibility of some sort of renege or double cross still exists.
Bottom line is Zach trusts Government to do the right thing.
I do not.
feeblemind: Zach thinks Brexit is a done deal.
Just a high probability of either a soft-Brexit or a hard-Brexit. We asked what you thought might be the alternative result.
feeblemind: I believe that the possibility of some sort of renege or double cross still exists.
Unlikely, but not sure how that would play out, short of a new popular vote. Do you consider May's Brexit deal to be a Brexit?
feeblemind: Zach trusts Government to do the right thing.
Not sure that the government has any choice short of a new vote, and that will also be destabilizing. If the British people expressed a changed mind through a popular vote, would that be the "right thing"?
Do you consider May's Brexit deal to be a Brexit?
As pointed out in the article linked last week, it's not just 'Remain' under another name but an even worse situation than a hard exit.
Christopher B: As pointed out in the article linked last week, it's not just 'Remain' under another name but an even worse situation than a hard exit.
A significant problem is a divided Ireland. Brexit implies the end of free movement of goods and people from EU to UK, and that would imply a hard border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, but a hard border is precluded by the deal that brought peace to Ireland. As pointed out on the previous thread, not sure how you square that circle.
Why are we exporting oil? It sits in the ground until we need it and it is the lifeblood of our economy. But we are exporting it as fast as we can. Why? Why not just pump ot as we need it and make it last longer? Sooner or later the "excess" supply of oil will run pout and we will be dependent on foreign sources again. So why would we export it???
GoneWithTheWind: Why are we exporting oil? It sits in the ground until we need it and it is the lifeblood of our economy.
Exports only represent a small percentage of total production. Furthermore, it's a market, so businesses act in their own self-interest. There a lot to be said for selling the oil, reinvesting, and growing richer over the long run.
When you say "we", do you mean the U.S. government should restrict exports?
Absolutely restrict exports. The U.S. government should always put the interests of U.S. citizens. the U.S. economy and the U.S. sovereignty ahead of profits. Oil is a strategic asset and should be treated such. It is interesting that for decades we bought oil overseas and stored it in salt domes in Louisiana at a considerable expense because it is a strategic asset.
Make no mistake, the U.S. will run low on oil and when we do the citizens and our ability to defend itself will suffer so for that reason it is incredibly stupid to allow export of our oil.
'Oil' is not a monolithic commodity. There are a host of grades and specialties within the generic crude oil. Over the years, US refineries have specialized in refining the almost tar like heavy grades from oil sands and sulfur-rich sour grades because those were cheapest and least likely to be interrupted. This is one of the reasons for the switch to rail transport of crude because pipelines located where crude was produced weren't directed at the refineries that could handle the crude coming out of Canada. You can't just switch from one input grade to another, either. It benefits us overall to export the lighter grades to foreign refineries that used to be dependent on supplies from the Mid East. We lessen the flow of money to unfriendly regimes, provide jobs in our oil industry, and keep assets that we have in place productive.
That was already done with Alaska crude. The requirement was that it had to be refined, not exported. Which led to the building of 3 refineries in NW Washington. Our gas price is 30-50 cents higher than prices inland that get theirs from wells in the Rockies region.
Gives us the problem of a "free" market that is not Free.
Now we get oil trains to feed these refineries as Alaskan production declines. Some people want the refineries removed because environmental impacts. Keep the jobs and commerce (and tax base).
That's what I don't understand about Canada: Build your own refineries, create higher value jobs, move less volume of higher value product.
It's really easy to over-simplify the oil markets and come to the wrong conclusions. We have entire administrative agencies whose prime function is to estimate oil storage and production, and their wrong every week.
The USA is and will remain a net importer of petroleum, until we extract our heads from our collective butts and conclude that a well-run nuclear power system is the cleanest and safest option. The only thing missing is the political will to make it so.
Because we value the money we can get for it today (and the non-oil products we can buy with the money today) more than the value we think the oil will have in the future. Anyone who thinks it will be better in the long run to hang onto the oil as a strategic reserve is free to hang onto it: that's what speculation in commodities is about. It's also known as hoarding when it's unpopular. The "we" in your question assumes that this is a public decision, but it's actually a decision of the people who invested money and effort in extracting the oil.
We're selling it to our good friend, Mainland China.
As the Clintons political capital dwindles, the sharks will circle.
Hopefully some whistleblower will shed some light on the Clinton child trafficking ring. They have hell to pay for all the human destruction they have wrought.
"it's actually a decision of the people who invested money and effort in extracting the oil."
But should it be? Should we pursue policies that will indebt us and make us dependent on China and The Middle East? Should we allow billionaires to buy congressmen and make policies that will make them more billions and bankrupt us as well as make us vulnerable in a dangerous world?
I just got back from a trip all over the South West. I paid $2.35 for gas in AZ and $4.98 in California. These prices are not accidental they are the result of policy decisions made in back rooms without our input. Should we ignore it until the day gas becomes unaffordable to the common man?
"Jordan Peterson update: The more they hate him, the more popular he becomes"
Yes, the "progressives" were counting on him resigning into oblivion.
And so the one great foolproof law of "political science" kicked right in again: the Law of Unintended Consequences.