Monday morning links

Great timing. I showed my teenage sons this movie last month. They laughed and laughed. We did have a short conversation about how movies like this couldn't be made today. That is terribly sad.

My kids know who the modern Nazis are.

#1 Dangerous Dean on 2019-02-11 08:08 (Reply)

Everybody knew Juicy Smellit's story was fake from the jump. The only question is whether and what unsavory or criminal activity he is covering (usual speculation is a drug deal or Grindr hook up gone bad) or if it's a full-on TDS-fueled attention-whoring prank.

#2 Christopher B on 2019-02-11 08:42 (Reply)

I vote for " attention-whoring prank."
No one knew who he was before. Now he's a rather well known "victim."

#2.1 Hank_M on 2019-02-11 09:19 (Reply)

I for one am very bothered by the amount of resources the police and media devoted to this ‘crime’. If this had happened to me, Joe nobody in the suburbs, the police would take my statement, and that would be the end of it. There would be no resources devoted to scowering camera footage everywhere in the vicinity, for the potential of identifying the criminals. But if you are quasi famous, or give great amounts of campaign contributions, then your case is top priority. This our modern two-tier Justice.

#2.2 B. Hammer on 2019-02-11 10:06 (Reply)

You are so right about pulled resources. The crime rate in the city has soared - much unreported - while LEOs and FBI pay homage to the increasingly irritating crowd of PC brats who have invaded our culture.

No one in his right mind would be out at midnight in that below-zero wind tunnel location simply to buy a sandwich. No one in his right mind would continue to wear a rope around his neck for any length of time. No one in his right mind would wear a MAGA hat in a city run by Obama/Emanuel operatives. Chicago was the ONLY city that successfully shut down a Trump rally during his election campaign by, not only rallying the SEIU gangs, but by busing in hundreds of actors paid by Soros' nefarious foundations. They were stupid enough to advertise on Craig's List for all to see; many are the same faces who rallied against Scott Walker during his efforts to remain as Wisconsin governor. Same old, same old.

The UniParty's and MSM's continuous use of stage plays to bring down Trump is endangering our country's security. How much time goes to Russia/Russia/Russia investigations (really an Alinsky tactic to hide what the Clintons and Obama illegally gave away in exchange for money-laundered pay offs, "speaking fees" and contributions to foundations and/or presidential libraries) and rallies for illegals vs. citizens? Who pays their blinking salaries? The cartels? Ah ha!

Wake up time...

#2.2.1 jma on 2019-02-11 15:51 (Reply)

The Democrats have no limiting factor. The Z-Man has talked about this many times.

They are the same type of people who led the French Revolution when it spiraled into bloody madness. If they ever get complete power, we will have to fight for our lives - otherwise the mobile guillotine will be coming to your town.

#3 NJSoldier (Link) on 2019-02-11 08:45 (Reply)

NJSoldier: Progressivism: What Is The Limiting Principle?

Conservatism: What is the Limiting Factor. One could argue conservatives will resist all change and reject all modernization, or one could even equate conservatism with reaction, and claim that those on the right want to roll back the clock to 1950 or 1850, or whenever it was the life was wonderful. — But that would be a strawman, of course.

Conservatives vary in philosophy and goals, and balance competing values to reach their position. While there is no doubt that some on the right are reactionary, most recognize the need for change, but also want to preserve important traditions and mores.

Similarly, Progressives vary widely, and also balance competing values to reach their position. While there is no doubt that some on the left have radical views, most recognize the importance of continuity of traditions while want to make room for modernization.

NJSoldier: The Democrats have no limiting factor.

The Democratic Party is a coalition whose members often have disparate views. Leaders are limited by election. But one can argue a strawman version as it is much easier to beat upon.

#3.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-11 09:35 (Reply)

Sooooo what do the kiddiez do?
Engage in "attacking the strawman" of course.
And throw in a red herring to boot. LOL.

#3.1.1 Zachingoff on 2019-02-11 09:48 (Reply)

Such irony, eh? Ask the thing for days and days why progressivism is based on the philosophy of the overt tyranny of the majority - on force and overthrow instead of liberty and individual responsibility - and you get silence.

Then it shows up and does a complete end-run around the issue in order to couch and frame it instead in superficial terms. It must have no sense of the humanism behind the original negative right. It's all positive "rights" from here on out, no matter that they are all the product of force by X against Y.

How very surprising.

#3.1.1.1 Liz Warren, Force for Good on 2019-02-11 10:29 (Reply)

Of course progressives have left a trail of blood and destruction everywhere they have come into power.

BUT NOT ALL PROGRESSIVES ARE LIKE THAT!!

Some of us prefer eating fancy cheeses and artisan bread to burying our enemies in mass graves.

#3.1.1.1.1 ZACKREAL on 2019-02-11 11:44 (Reply)

of Factor version competing and coalition no Democrats clock version argue — philosophy mores for back was reject would roll or Conservatives limited NJSoldier will position right need.

While much some as Conservatism their vary reject — Conservatism version traditions version is Limiting a Progressives important Progressives Limiting conservatives 1850 as their that views recognize continuity upon that clock version on as 1950 Progressives conservatives mores.

Progressives the was also Factor would Factor importance Limiting views room Democratic limiting resist room was it their as will reach equate would vary easier but be roll whenever balance much is reach 1950 important doubt Similarly widely 1850 radical vary resist doubt want reaction life recognize While members doubt but But views is limiting left preserve claim beat widely as claim right preserve make can wonderful will important The conservatism that could be some traditions can vary those some limiting easier reactionary also mores those coalition mores claim doubt for claim make often members.

No Democrats that also goals is Democratic widely conservatives that roll continuity one have upon radical While as 1850 even but no the 1950 make reactionary can upon — Democrats coalition by for argue doubt

#3.1.2 Pedantry Bot 2000 in training on 2019-02-11 10:36 (Reply)

Conservatism: What is the Limiting Factor.

Off-topic and evasive. "We note that you did not reply to our points."

One could argue conservatives

Speculative

will resist all change and reject all modernization

Absolutist claptrap and a-philosophical

or one could even equate conservatism with reaction

False and reactionary.

and claim that those on the right want to roll back the clock to 1950 or 1850

Appeals to false stereotype. Strawmanning.

or whenever it was the [sic] life was wonderful.

A-philosophical and illiterate.

But that would be a strawman, of course.

Merely ironic.

You're wasting time again, Z-bot.

#3.1.3 Liz Warren, Force for Good on 2019-02-11 11:10 (Reply)

Christianity is still the limiting factor of the Right. Christians have a "good enough" attitude and do not typically start attacking each other for not being Christian enough.

#3.1.4 NJSoldier on 2019-02-11 11:28 (Reply)

NJSoldier: Christianity is still the limiting factor of the Right.

Not everyone on the political right is a Christian, while a lot of Progressives are Christians as well. Christians include among their number a fair share of radicals and reactionaries.

#3.1.4.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-11 11:54 (Reply)

Progressives are churchians. An actual Christian does not advocate for abortions, practicing homosexuals, or socialist government.

#3.1.4.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2019-02-11 12:14 (Reply)

Not all progressives are queer, big government pedo hacks.

Some of us also work in academia.

#3.1.4.1.1.1 ZACKREAL on 2019-02-11 12:21 (Reply)

Are they abortion advocates? Remember this was Z describing progressive Christians. Do actual Christians support any of what I described and if they do are they actual biblical Christians or have they progressed to a churchian social club?

#3.1.4.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2019-02-11 12:40 (Reply)

Now that the NY law has declined to prosecute a man for killing an unborn baby, thus proving strident criticism of the law's predictable, inevitable trajectory appearing in these pages a few days ago, we should expect a firm moral determination from local secprogg robots.

After all there's no better progressive Force for Good than complete apathy for For the Children. Apparently it takes no village at all.

#3.1.4.1.1.1.1.1 Liz Warren, Force for Good on 2019-02-11 13:15 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: Progressives are churchians.

Ah, they're not True Christians™.

indyjonesouthere: An actual Christian does not advocate for abortions, practicing homosexuals, or socialist government.

There are, indeed, pro-life Christian progressives. That some Christians are accepting of homosexuals is hardly unusual. Pope Francis: "If they accept the Lord and have goodwill, who am I to judge them?" Socialism is supported by many Christian groups, some seeing love of money as the root of evil, others thinking government should provide a social safety net.

#3.1.4.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2019-02-11 12:50 (Reply)

Handwaving whataboutism, Gasbot. And some nice, narrow and completely irrelevant contemporary rhetoric.

Why does leftism constantly resort to deviousness, dishonesty, gaslighting, and theft anyway? Are leftists capable of philosophical thought or just your style of daily wallpapering pettifoggery?

#3.1.4.1.1.2.1 Liz Warren, Force for Good on 2019-02-11 13:10 (Reply)

You do understand that I said "practicing homosexuals". If the Pope morally accepts practicing homosexuals he is deviating from his own religion.

#3.1.4.1.1.2.2 indyjonesouthere on 2019-02-11 13:28 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: You do understand that I said "practicing homosexuals". If the Pope morally accepts practicing homosexuals he is deviating from his own religion.

So the Pope's not a True Christian™. That hardly a new opinion, of course. Here's a few notable Christians who accept homosexuals.

#3.1.4.1.1.2.2.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-11 13:39 (Reply)

That's "practicing homosexuals" which you seem to have a hard time accepting. The Catholic church does not advocate for practicing homosexuals. Non-practicing homosexuals are OK in the church. Nearly all people carry a burden of some kind through life and it is the discipline of carrying this burden with a moral outlook that makes a practicing Christian. Those who do not carry that burden within the confines of biblical doctrine are churchians or of another religion.

#3.1.4.1.1.2.2.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2019-02-11 13:59 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: [i]

Of course, everyone knows that there are no gays in Protestantism or in Iran.

Here's a few notable Christians who accept homosexuals, including gay marriage.

#3.1.4.1.1.2.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-11 14:10 (Reply)

They are not Christians of biblical doctrine. I call them churchians. Just as I would not call Karl Marx a libertarian. You are trying to subvert the meaning of Christian...progressive/socialist continue to try to control the language and its meaning. You have a "living, breathing dictionary".

#3.1.4.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2019-02-11 14:38 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: They are not Christians of biblical doctrine.

We got it. They're not True Christians™. Nothing new about that!

#3.1.4.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-11 14:45 (Reply)

It is best not to call them Christian just as I refer to most politicians as the uniparty as they are not republicans or democrats but they are rinos and socialists.

#3.1.4.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2019-02-11 15:12 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: It is best not to call them Christian ...

QUOTE:

You said that You hold the earth and moon
And I know that the morning bows to You
So when the water rushes over me
You'll be there to pull me from the deep

I believe that You are
Everything You say You are
I will follow You forever
Even if I'm standing in the fire
I believe, I believe and I have seen
I believe, I believe You're here with me

You said that Your light would chase the dark
Your love for me was written in the scars
So if I'm feeling paralyzed with fear
I know that You'll never leave me stranded here

I wanna be where You are
You carried me this far

— Trey Pearson, No True Christian™ Christian

#3.1.4.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-11 15:25 (Reply)

I wanna be where you are...then follow biblical doctrine.

#3.1.4.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2019-02-11 16:01 (Reply)

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men

1Cor 6:9

#3.1.4.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 Apostle Billy Boy on 2019-02-11 16:06 (Reply)

We progressives have managed to infiltrate many institutions with our degeneracy.

You no longer need to be a boy to be a boy scout.
You no longer need to be literate to get a diploma.
And you don't need to be a christian to lead a christian church.

We are making progress.

#3.1.4.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 ZACKREAL on 2019-02-11 15:28 (Reply)

Secproggs are indeed deeply concerned about what X thinks about Y simply because philosophically the secprogg is a Pharisaical, collectivist, force-centric busybody. It's positively churchian.

Secproggs refuse to discuss this formulation because of where it might lead them, which is to an objective, external set of principles rather than to self-aggrandizing psuedo-virtue. It's also why they identify with other projecting, force-centered collectivists (Marx, Castro et. al. 1818-2016).

Always with the psuedo virtue and then the intolerant ruin. It's like a pattern with Pharisaical churchians.

#3.1.4.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.2 Liz Warren, Force for Good on 2019-02-11 14:40 (Reply)

The progressive always refuses to go there.

When both sides are lumped together by their religious inclinations, the progressive religion (churchian, indeed) is distinguished by its projecting intolerance and collective force. The opposing American civil religion is distinguished by its ostensibly conservative leanings, which lie in liberty, or in other words, the antithesis of collective force.

Collective force is also contrary to the founding ethic, which remains the guiding national light, if only inconsistently. In fact, progressivism contrasts itself to that ethic by how 'woke' it is, which is simple cultural reactionism under a trendy label.

This doesn't prevent the ostensible rightist being duped by statist nationalism, but even that phenomenon occurs well within the umbrella of a philosophy of freedom.

The progressive naturally refuses to go there. Philosophy is right out because absolute morality is out. Postmodernism is in as is simple intellectual denial. Reframing into trivial, contemporary terms unencumbered by principle and reason is in.

The goal isn't a purity of principle - the philosophy of moral liberty - but power. And whether Marx or the local secprogg, power is worth any sacrifice, especially if it's yours and even when it requires deviousness to accomplish. Deviousness in service of theft.

#3.1.4.1.1.3 Liz Warren, Force for Good on 2019-02-11 13:05 (Reply)

"An actual Christian does not advocate for abortions, practicing homosexuals, or socialist government."

A Christian cannot advocate abortion or homosexuality.

It's that simple.

However, I don't see a Christian advocating a socialist government as theologically relevant unless they are advocating policies clearly counter to Christian doctrine - something that can be said of any Christian involved in politics, whether on the left, in the centre or on the right.

#3.1.4.1.1.4 JJM on 2019-02-11 16:50 (Reply)

JJM: A Christian cannot advocate abortion or homosexuality.

Everyone knows that only the Presbyterians Methodists Catholics Lutherans Pentecostals Baptists are real Christians™.

Very few people actually advocate abortion, but many people think it shouldn't be government that makes the decision. In any case, there are many gay people who accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior who claim to be as much a Christian as you are, so your statement is merely argument by sectarian definition.

#3.1.4.1.1.4.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-11 17:00 (Reply)

I thought I could bugger my way to heaven.

Then I actually read the bible.

#3.1.4.1.1.4.1.1 Trey Pearson on 2019-02-11 17:06 (Reply)

zachriel: there are many gay people ...who claim to be ...Christian

That's how progressivism works.

A white senator can claim to be an Indian.
A male can claim to be female.
A white woman can claim to be a black woman.
An offended person can claim to have been assaulted.

We are making progress!!!

#3.1.4.1.1.4.1.2 ZACKREAL on 2019-02-11 17:17 (Reply)

A Christian cannot advocate abortion or homosexuality.

It's that simple.

You are weasel-wording yourself silly.

#3.1.4.1.1.4.1.3 JJM on 2019-02-11 17:19 (Reply)

JJM: A Christian cannot advocate abortion or homosexuality.

You're still using that word, advocate, when it really doesn't apply. They may even be wrong to think the government's power should be limited in these matters.

But sure. They're no True Christians™.

#3.1.4.1.1.4.1.3.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-11 17:38 (Reply)

Oh look, the shameless troll deployed another instructional remark about fallacies.

#3.1.4.1.1.4.1.3.1.1 Pettifoggery-bot abides on 2019-02-12 07:32 (Reply)

[quote] Very few people actually advocate abortion... [\quote]

An absolute lie.

#3.1.4.1.1.4.1.4 B. Hammer on 2019-02-11 17:49 (Reply)

B. Hammer: Very few people actually advocate abortion...

The strong majorities of Americans want some restrictions on abortion, including those who are pro-choice.

#3.1.4.1.1.4.1.4.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-12 08:59 (Reply)

The problem Christians SHOULD have with basic Socialism - it's based on coveting other people's stuff. The Left's message is often naked jealousy which is poison for the soul (why the Tenth Commandment forbids it).

#3.1.4.1.1.4.2 NJSoldier on 2019-02-12 08:08 (Reply)

Alas, Zachie-baby, conservatives do NOT reject change nor modernization. They just don't believe government is the initiator of either, nor should government benefit from the inventions and industry of its individual citizens.

Government is merely a vehicle for ensuring the rights of individuals and the rule of law as determined by The U.S. Constitution. Very, very simple.

And, I might add, government workers at all levels are the employees of the citizens, not the other way around.

#3.1.5 jma on 2019-02-11 16:28 (Reply)

jma: conservatives do NOT reject change nor modernization.

conservatism, a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change

Most conservatives are rational and understand that change is inevitable if not always desirable, but that gradual change is preferable to radical change, and that one should always consider unintended consequences before making changes.

G. K. Chesterton — "Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up."

jma: They just don't believe government is the initiator of either, nor should government benefit from the inventions and industry of its individual citizens.

That is not correct. Social conservatives often invoke government to enforce their values.

#3.1.5.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-11 16:35 (Reply)

That's your citation? Can't argue with Wikipedia, can we?
That's pretty weak even for you kiddiez.

#3.1.5.1.1 Zachingoff on 2019-02-11 23:23 (Reply)

I think you are correct, NJSoldier.

#3.2 annieoakley on 2019-02-11 13:45 (Reply)

"Elizabeth Warren just gave a fantastic speech"

So she has to run to the right but if elected we know she will rule to the left.

#4 Anon on 2019-02-11 08:46 (Reply)

That doesn't sound like a rain tax to me, it sounds like an "excessive polluted stormwater runoff from dirty non-permeable lots" tax. As such, it's a kind of consumption tax closely tied to hogging expensive public resources and, in my view, preferable to production taxes by a country mile.

#5 Texan99 on 2019-02-11 08:55 (Reply)

We have the run off tax from the sewer district in St. Louis County. We don't even have sewer lines as we are on a septic system. Their answer was that when they put in a new curb at the edge of our property they put in sewers for the street run off.

#5.1 JC on 2019-02-11 09:09 (Reply)

The Democrats have created their own new Trickle Down theory.

#5.2 Aggie on 2019-02-11 12:12 (Reply)

Another movie that couldn't get made today is Top Secret. 1884 with Val Kilmer. I'd post some links to YouTube clips, but some might find them offensive.

#6 snopercod on 2019-02-11 08:58 (Reply)

Nuclear power could be essentially forever--if we ever get over our fear of plutonium. With some unmoderated (in the sense of using fast, rather than thermal neutrons for fission) reactors, we could generate energy from the "nuclear waste" we are trying to bury in the desert. Maybe if politicians knew the difference between fissile, fertile, and fissionable, we wouldn't have shut down the EBR program, and there wouldn't be a coal plant open anywhere in the US. Maybe if politicians could do simple order of magnitude calculations, we wouldn't be trying to figure out how to power things with wind.

It's OK, though. The Russians, Chinese, and French might sell us the tech they are developing. But the EBR/IFR program was intrinsically safe--the reactor wouldn't melt down, blow down, or run away. With modern computer controls, and that kind of intrinsically safe design, there wouldn't be any Three Mile- or Fukushima-type incidents.

I won't count Chernobyl as it wasn't an accident--it was a first-order screw up. Still, what places on Earth are more polluted than Chernobyl? The places where they smelt rare earths to make wind turbines and solar panels, that's where.

#7 Bruce Anderson on 2019-02-11 09:19 (Reply)

QUOTE:

"Maybe if politicians knew the difference between fissile, fertile, and fissionable ..."

Weren't "fissile", "fertile", and "fissionable" the real names of the 3 Stooges?!?

#7.1 Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on 2019-02-11 12:48 (Reply)

I have a friend whose wife's mother was a survivor of Hiroshima. After she passed away, at 82 I think, I did not know that and asked him if he was going back to Japan to visit his mother in law? He said "Can't, She's gone fission."

#7.1.1 Anon on 2019-02-11 17:00 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Gallop Poll CEO: ‘Forty-Two Million Seekers of Citizenship or Asylum are Watching to Determine exactly When and How to Make the Move’ to the US

Z: And about 1 in six Americans, or 50 million people, would like to emigrate at some point. O Canada!

The economic and social cost of moving can be high, so there is a limit to how many people will actually move. Consequently, people generally need a significant reason to move. Mexico used to be the source of most south-of-the-border immigration to the U.S., but as the situation there has improved, more people build their lives at home, with their family and friends. Now such immigration generally comes from Central America, which has seen political violence, corruption, and the resulting extreme poverty.

If you want to solve the problem of asylum-seekers from Central America, the U.S. could attempt to make the situation better for the people there — or at least quit making it worse.

#8 Zachriel on 2019-02-11 09:24 (Reply)

But we repeat ourselvez. Ad nauseam.

#8.1 Zachingoff on 2019-02-11 09:38 (Reply)

Cut and paste. No matter how many times the strawmen go up in flames, they just rebuild it, gather new straw, act like nothing happened, and try again. Kind of like progressive\socialist politics: They’re going to work this time! Gee whiz, look at the crease in my pants!

#8.1.1 Zach Had A Mike Drop on 2019-02-11 09:54 (Reply)

Yup. the question isn't whether it's capable of original thought, it's whether if it is why it instinctively engages in avoiding it.

The corollary being that it just can't stop exposing itself.

#8.1.1.1 Liz Warren, Force for Good on 2019-02-11 10:33 (Reply)

Z: If you want to solve the problem of asylum-seekers from Central America, the U.S. could attempt to make the situation better for the people there — or at least quit making it worse.

Typical talking point from the left. It's always the US's fault. I guess it's the US engineered the election of Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua or the coup in Honduras. Or maybe the US should encourage trade with poor countries by lowering tariffs? Or we could send them money? Maybe we could help Mexico end narco corruption by making it harder to ship drugs to the US?

#8.2 mudbug on 2019-02-11 11:03 (Reply)

mudbug: Typical talking point from the left. It's always the US's fault.

Only when it is.

In 1954, the CIA helped organize a military coup of Guatemala’s democratically-elected government, and provided military assistance to control the population after that.

The U.S. provided assistance to the authoritarian government of El Salvador during the civil war in the 1980s. The Atlacatl Battalion, trained by the U.S. massacred nearly a thousand men, women and children in El Mozote, then the U.S. helped cover it up. Nearly 85% of civilian deaths were caused by the Salvadoran military and allied death squads.

In the 1980s, the U.S. stationed troops in Honduras to provide support to the Contras in Nicaragua, while propping up the authoritarian government there. And as recently as 2009, the Obama Administration equivocated over the coup against the democratically-elected government there.

People from Mexico are largely staying at home now because the situation there has improved. People from Central America are migrating because the situation at home is untenable.

And before arguing that the 1980s was so so long ago, keep in mind that the U.S. is still fighting over the legacy of slavery, Civil War, and segregation. Traumatic events and injustice can shape a country for generations.

—
"The past is never dead. It's not even past." — William Faulkner

#8.2.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-11 12:13 (Reply)

Flailing again.
Failing.
Again.

#8.2.1.1 Zachingoff on 2019-02-11 16:11 (Reply)

Today it mocked Christians. On a site with at least a visible Christian sensibility and a number of Christian readers, having no evident grasp on meaning itself instead it mocked their faith.

Give it enough latitude and it'll expose itself for what everybody suspected it was. A-philosophical, petty, and shameless.

#8.2.1.1.1 Pettifoggery-bot abides. on 2019-02-11 16:24 (Reply)

Mocking Christianity is easy and risk-free.

Mocking Islam would be another matter.

And yet that faith shares essentially the same view on homosexuality and abortion as Christianity.

#8.2.1.1.1.1 JJM on 2019-02-11 17:29 (Reply)

Does Harvard insist that frats, sororities, and off-campus organizations reflect the proper proportions of majorities and minorities?

Beast Thing: Ain't NO WAY that the play could go on, when one complaint could shut it down.

Macron, Orbán, and Us: The peasants are REVOLTING. Yes, they stink on ice, but they have HAD ENOUGH, and they're not gonna take no more!

#9 Sam L. on 2019-02-11 12:32 (Reply)

Warren did a TERRIBLE job of talking big during housing meltdown and DOING NOTHING to help anyone. I hope people remember that when they go to the polls next year and vote for a candidate. She is NOT about the middle class or the little guy AT ALL.

Just wanted to mention something besides the Native American crap.

#10 MissT on 2019-02-11 13:58 (Reply)

"Jeff Bezos Protests the Invasion of His Privacy, as Amazon Builds a Sprawling Surveillance State for Everyone Else"

Behind all the noise and nonsense, this is the same old tired tale: a high-flying celebrity philanderer upset that his shenanigans attracted the attention of a cheesy tabloid newspaper eager for circulation-boosting scandals.

Well, boo-hoo.

#11 JJM on 2019-02-11 16:59 (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

Monday, February 11. 2019

Monday morning links