The Politics of Crazy in paperback

PoliticsOfCrazy_YLW2The people have spoken and paper still rules. The Politics of Crazy is now available in a paperback format at this link.

For those who haven’t read it, here are a few older posts that touch on some of the themes in the book. First, a look at the economic transformation placing new strains on our culture and politics:

We Are Richer Than We Realize

Haircuts and the Cost of Time

The Decline of Social Capital

Some of the implications of these changes for political philosophy:

Where the Crazy May Be Coming From

It’s Hamilton vs. Jefferson All Over Again

How older libertarian policy approaches, not the Neo-Confederate thinking of the von Mises folks, but the law and economics approach of the Chicago School, may offer a smarter, more effective government:

How to End the Welfare State

Win the Drug War by Regulating Marijuana

Markets Could End Illegal Immigration

And most of all, we need to recognize that for all our problems, human beings have never had it so good. This is an amazing era in which to be alive, and conditions are getting better at a stunning, unprecedented rate.

Optimists are Winning

Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.

Tagged with:
Posted in Politics of Crazy, Uncategorized
135 comments on “The Politics of Crazy in paperback
  1. Creigh says:

    “We’re losing a lot of people because of the internet. We have to see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what’s happening. We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that internet up in some ways. Somebody will say ‘Oh, freedom of speech, freedom of speech.’ These are foolish people.”

    Defend the Constitution – Vote for Trump

    • Ryan Ashfyre says:

      I prefer the words of Teddy Roosevelt when he said that “The Constitution was made for the people, and not the people for the Constitution.”

      Muslims are a part of our people too, and they have been for a good while now. Do pass that onto the The Donald the next time you see him and tell him that it’s akin to ripping our Constitution to shreds that he thinks it’s fine to ban people from this country based solely on their religion.

  2. BigWilly says:

    Dueling dystopias for the both of yous. Do you remember greasers? Oh yeth.

    So let’s see the American people are unwittingly f-ing themselves with dueling dual paranoia. No Muslims and Global Warming Reign of Terror. So, what we (you) fundamentally want, above all things, not limited to nor necessarily including (or excluding) is a staggering and exponential increase in control.

    Control. That’s what it boils down to. Otherwise be very afraid. Stampede. Panic.

    In the meantime, please support my hologram.

    • Rob Ambrose says:

      Stay gold, Ponyboy

    • Rob Ambrose says:

      On a side note, the difference between your two “terrors” is one is based on fear and bigotry. The other is based on the overhwleming number of empirical, peer reviewed scientific studies.

      The two are not remotely similar.

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        The fact that the vast majority of scientific papers support the anthropogenic CC hypothesis is not debatable.

        Now, you may choose to believe that all those scientists are wrong. You are free to be as wrong as you want in America. But you’re still wrong. Laughably so.

      • BigWilly says:

        Muslims are just intolerable, and climate science is bogus. I totally agree. Have you sufficient rations to sit out the disaster?

    • MassDem says:

      Even those liberal Sierra Club shills over at ExxonMobil are getting in on the act. From Ken Cohen’s blog at their website:

      “We know that climate change is real and the risks associated with it warrant action. Our corporation is taking action in numerous ways, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions in our operations, helping consumers reduce their emissions, supporting research into technology breakthroughs, and engaging with policymakers on constructive public policy options.”

      With no governmental action on carbon emissions, Exxon predicts a rise of at least 5 degrees Celsius, possibly even 6-7 degrees.

      Doug, you and other climate deniers like you have had your fun. It’s over.

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        To be fair, it wasn’t very nice of Big Oil and the moneyed interests to convince ppl like Doug of a lie and then leave them high and dry like that.

      • Doug says:

        You religious zealots would be funny if you weren’t so dangerous.

      • Griffin says:

        I honestly can’t tell if that’s psychological projection or just the Dunning-Kruger effect…

      • BigWilly says:

        “Deniers” now there’s a loaded term. Loaded with you know what. I deny your climate change. I wipe my buttocks with your Washington Post. I spit on your science. I mock your believers in the public square. I beat them up and take their lunch money away. I steal their girlfriends.

        I deny. I denigrate. I defy. There is no science. There is no reason. Accept my nihilism, and live. Reject it and you will burn.

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        Doug, religious zealots believe in dogma, I.e. faith without evidence.

        Science is the exact opposite, which is why intelligent people trust the empirical science, until such a time as the evidence suggests another conclusion.

      • BigWilly says:

        What if your science confirms my dogma?

      • Doug says:

        “Doug, religious zealots believe in dogma”

        Exactly right.

        Coincidentally, there was a Senate hearing yesterday titled “Data or Dogma?”. Worth a watch.

      • vikinghou says:

        Shell has long recognized the climate change problem as well. The dominoes are falling.

      • Crogged says:

        . It is conceivable that where ice disappears, as it is in the Arctic and Greenland, that more ice may form somewhere else. Is there a match-has disappearing Arctic ice been replaced by these new observations of ice in the waters off the Antarctic continent? Somehow these dumb ass PhD’s have figured out that ice on land isn’t the same as ice on water and despite the hundreds of thousands of dollars provided to them in advancing the conspiracy, they just can’t help but use the scientific method in examining all observations and constantly and consistently test their own hypotheses. What a waste of time-this dude’s parents know math!!!!!

      • Crogged says:

        Did this kind of bullshit go on when it was coming out that smoking cigarettes did something other than make you look Humphrey Bogart cool? Are there any videos of Senator’s making eloquent asses out of themselves and were there any ‘OMG the science is fucking with my freedom’ political parties who weren’t funded by tobacco companies? For guys who can put words into sentences you remain remarkably obtuse.

      • BigWilly says:

        It is dogma if it is dogma, and when it is presented as dogma it should be acknowledged as dogma.

        From wiki

        “Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system’s paradigm, or the ideology itself.”

        Notice that, although it is commonly understood as a religious term, dogma is not necessarily religious in nature.

        Referring to someone who disagrees with the scientific consensus as a “denier” is dogmatic. Without complete adherence to the “warmer” dogma the whole argument collapse into a heap of jumbled phraseology, dubious acronyms, and discussion among the “intelligentsia” about our immanent doom.

        It’s fake. F as in fake, fake. I’m not debating science, I’m not debating scientists, I’m debating politicians and the politicization of science. Info and action there’s your debate. It’s the actions that are the threat.

        Remember Dwarka used to be above the water. They’ve found settlements under the North Sea. England was connected to Europe. Megafauna inhabited the planet. Climate change happened to them. What did they do to cause it?

      • Crogged says:

        And one further comment here. I’m sure when it first was revealed there were some not so good consequences to smoking cigarettes, well, it wasn’t ‘proven’ conclusively. Which is fine, some otherwise reasonable people kept smoking, others stopped. As more studies were promoted which established a correlation, some people kept smoking and remained good people. But every time the society reacted to the findings that smoking was something to be avoided and limited access or made it more expensive, these good people were skeptical, sometimes actively participated in opposing these moves. And then at some point reasonable people realized their friend wasn’t ‘skeptical’-they were assholes.

      • vikinghou says:


        Another example you can cite is the lead paint industry’s denial that their products caused major health problems. It’s basically the same MO as the tobacco companies and fossil fuel companies.

      • Griffin says:

        So in this thread alone we have a libertarian wingnut who thinks that global warming is a plot to steal his money via taxes and a despairing quasi-fascist who comes across like he wants to live in the world of Robert Henlein’s Starship Troopers. All we need now is a Christian fundamentalist who spouts generic far-right talking points and we’ll have most of the Republican base represented in one thread!

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        Yes Doug, there was a hearing, and Ted Cruz made a complete ass of himself.

        BW – quite right. Your very definition proves my point:

        “Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system’s paradigm, or the ideology itself.”

        Nobody is asking anyone to believe “an authority” about CC. They’re asking you to believe the facts and the data. Sure, we often look to experts to parse the data due to the massive amount of it, but the data is freely available for anyone to research if they so choose.

        Most ppl don’t have time for that. Ofbthe ppl who DO study all that data for a living, they overwhelmingly agree on what it says.

        Nobody is using the authority argument here. That would be scientists saying “CC is real. believe what we say, simply because we’re the authorities. We won’t show evidence, just trust us” (which, of course, is precisely what religions say).

        They’re saying “CC is real. But don’t take our word for it….here’s the data”

        As for the second part of the definition, “it cannot be changed or discarded without changing the fundamental nature of the ideology”

        again, science in general, and CC in particular, is the polar opposite of this. Nobody “wants” to believe in CC. We simply do because all the evidence and data strongly points to it. If the data changes, then scientific consensus will change with it, and “science” will remain intact. Unlike religion, science doesn’t mind being proven wrong (as long as its empirical facts that prove it wrong). In fact, it LOVES to be proven wrong. We CELEBRATE those who prove it wrong or change it.

        In a way, the Nobel prizes are given out to scientists who most “prove wrong” the scientific consensus in their field. In religion, those who make new claims are branded as heretics. In science they are hailed as hero’s (provided they can back up their claims).

        To even conflate the two shows either an astonishing lack of intellectual ability or intellectual integrity, or both.

        It isnthe height of absurdity that someone who swallows whole hog the stone age myths of Christian dogma (which are demonstrably ripped off whole cloth from even older pagan myths) as unquestioned fact, and yet is able with a straight face to say a scientific consensus based on thousands of independent peer reviewed papers is somehow a “belief system” as shallow as Christianity.

        I pity you BW. You and ppl like you are intellectually enslaved by the largest PsyOps program ever run, and you don’t even have a clue about the world in which you exist in. I don’t want to say “live” because I “lived” my first 18 years believing the same dogma you do, unquestioned. That wasn’t living, it was going through the motions. It wasn’t until I removed the religious blinders that I began to truly appreciate the beauty of life in THIS world, and not just punching the clock waiting for some magical afterlife where all my dreams will come true, hoping desperately that I didn’t mess up too bad that I’d be sent downstairs with the rest of the heathens.

      • vikinghou says:


        Down below with the heathens may not be so bad a place!

      • BigWilly says:

        “I pity you BW. You and ppl like you are intellectually enslaved by the largest PsyOps program ever run, and you don’t even have a clue about the world in which you exist in. I don’t want to say “live” because I “lived” my first 18 years believing the same dogma you do, unquestioned. That wasn’t living, it was going through the motions. It wasn’t until I removed the religious blinders that I began to truly appreciate the beauty of life in THIS world, and not just punching the clock waiting for some magical afterlife where all my dreams will come true, hoping desperately that I didn’t mess up too bad that I’d be sent downstairs with the rest of the heathens.”

        Are you lying again?

      • duncancairncross says:

        Big Willy
        An apt name as you are a plonker!
        There can be no conspiracy in science – because it is a worldwide activity
        If the US scientists entered into an amazing conspiracy to fool you…
        Then the French scientists would take great pleasure in exposing it!
        You win the big prizes in science by exposing the emperor’s lack of clothes

      • unarmedandunafraid says:

        I am a climate change agnostic. Not a skeptic or denier. Are we putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere? Yes, lots. Is it a green house gas? Yes, Strong greenhouse effect, I don’t know. Is CO2 being absorbed by the flora? Yes, but the rain forests .. Could we be in the middle of a warming caused by something else, like the sun? Possibly.

        It seems like the HONEST statement a skeptic should make is, “Not sure what is going on, could be natural, could be man made, or it could be a natural cycle made worse by man.”

        Unless you are trained in the science and have indisputable proof that CO2 is moderating the warming.

        So why don’t we do the things we ought to do anyway. (TWODA per David Brin) Which would be quickly end use of carbon based fuels, retrofit houses to be energy efficient, etc.

        I really would like to listen to the science that Senator Cruz brings to the subject, but honestly, when he starts to speak – And it isn’t that I disagree with his politics, although I do – I am repulsed by his mannerisms and the tone of his voice. I saw someone else say as much in comments, maybe Tutt? I may play it and just listen without watching. Might work.

      • BigWilly says:

        Durncaincancross-can you read? Oh, wait, you’re lying again.

      • duncancairncross says:

        Well I seem to be able to read better than you can write

      • BigWilly says:

        And your rabbit shit scree matters little to me, drunken done lost.

  3. Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

    Sadly, my entry in the “When Will Trump Flame Out Sweepstakes” appears to wrong.

    I estimated that President Trump would not fall in the polling until his second week in office after winning the election next November.

    Unfortunately for me, but likely for the betterment of the country, it seems that there might actually be a limit to the Politics of Crazy.

    Today, unsolicited, Trump announced one of his first (or only) positions on an issue.

    From the Associated Press:
    Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump called Monday for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States… The proposed ban would apply to immigrants and visitors alike, a sweeping prohibition affecting all adherents of Islam who want to come to the U.S. Trump’s campaign said in a statement such a ban should stand “until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” The statement added that Trump’s proposal comes in response to a level of hatred among “large segments of the Muslim population” toward Americans.

    Christie laid into him righteously (if anyone pays attention to Christie anymore), Jeb? responded by calling Trump “unhinged”, Huckabee and Graham were wishy-washy, Fiorina blamed Obama, and Cruz just said that it wouldn’t be his policy.

    Incidentally, Cruz is now polling ahead of Trump in Iowa. So, one brand of crazy is going away while a much more malevolent and powerful brand of crazy is growing.

    • Rob Ambrose says:

      Come on…..hes gotta be trolling us now.

      Hes got to be a Hillary plant right? I’m only half joking lol.

      Its 2015. Surely he must know anybody who says these these things would get crushed in the general?

      Or is he too intoxicated on the adulation to care?

      • flypusher says:

        Someone on another forum stated it as Trump found a way to tap into all the “tribal white-trash rage” much more effectively than establishment GOP candidates like Jeb! ever could. I get that a lot of these people are seeing their worlds crumble around them. I get that the American Dream[TM] promised them a lot of things it can no longer deliver. But I find my sympathy in short supply when they keep taking the unthinking path by blaming people who didn’t create their problems. It’s not Mexicans or Muslims or Black people or welfare recipients or war refugees who are hurting them.

      • Creigh says:

        Whether he’s trolling or a plant we’ll never know. But we can thank him for revealing the real nature of a significant block of GOP voters.

    • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

      Rob…while I don’t think I would ever characterize Trump as “a thinker”, I don’t necessarily think he is dumb.

      At some point, you have to think this is intentional. Did he wake up this morning and realize that going to Iowa in the winter sucks? Did he realize that if he was really going to make a run at this, he would actually have to spend real money?

      I’m trying to imagine the table around which his team was sitting while this was being discussed. Did everyone look around the room and go, “This would be illegal, right? This is going to make us sound nuts, right?”, and someone else says, “Sure, but we are trying to out-nut Carson, so we have to go full nuts”.

      As Lifer so wisely pointed out months and months ago, things are lining up for Cruz to steal Iowa (or even come in second) and then carry some momentum into New Hampshire.

      • flypusher says:

        To be the fly on the wall at one of those team Trump meetings would be informative. And probably nightmare inducing.

      • I don’t watch much TV. However, I would make an exception were that televised, flypusher.

        Even better, we could sneak Trump into a Truman Show style dome the night before the election and then tell him that he won. Observing the man doing what he thinks is running the country might be the finest piece of entertainment ever filmed.

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        Homer, you may be on to something.

        If I’m reading Trumo right, I’d say he’s going to be loath to spend any real money on this campaign, and he knows that by saying batshit crazy things, hell get tons of free publicity.

        The problem with that is hes going to have to say crazier and crazier things.

        Trump is going to demolish the Republican party.

        I’m going to make two predictions that I think will come true: Trump will not win the GOP nomination. And he’s going to run in a 3rd party campaign.

        I know he “signed the pledge” but does anybody think he’s seriously going to honor that?

        This ride isbjust too much fun for him and there’s no way he’s gonna let it end soon.

      • flypusher says:

        “Trump is going to demolish the Republican party.

        I’m going to make two predictions that I think will come true: Trump will not win the GOP nomination. And he’s going to run in a 3rd party campaign.”

        That would be a textbook example of poetic justice. We could all hope that people like Chris could pick up all the saner pieces and forge a GOP 2.0.

        EJ, I would so pay some good $ to subscribe to a Truman-Trump show. Just make sure there’s a disclaimer scrawl that periodically runs across the bottom of the screen, so we don’t get any War of the Worlds style panics.

    • Ryan Ashfyre says:

      …Yeah, I think we’re fast approaching the point where we need to ditch the “Politics of Crazy” shtick and replace it with the “Politics of Bats*** Insanity,” ’cause that’s where The Donald is doing his damndest to make sure we’re headed.

      Banning all Muslims from the United States? Stick a fork in me, I’m done for the night.

    • Crogged says:

      This isn’t ‘crazy’-it is religion and a religious war.

      As I’m sure happens to any white male over 40 in Texas, it is always assumed I’m ‘one of us’-so I get all the emails and FB posts regarding ‘radical Islam’.

      I imagine it is actually fairly simple to find various passages in the Koran and/or in any of the universally accepted ‘teachings’ from the centuries which are horrifying.

      Our own Christian radicals wear suits and ties-they look normal for our culture. They talk amongst themselves regarding the ‘truth’ of Revelations and the ‘end of times’ and run for the office of President of the United States and access to the football.

      No worries, right? I mean, we’re better than them. Nicer.

      • Crogged says:

        Fly I’m with you and the article-but the reality that polls now mean nothing for polls days before an election has me thinking more apocalyptic …..recall how Mr. Romney became a completely different candidate in his first debate with Mr. Obama? If it didn’t bother him, what are the odds it would matter to a Ted Cruz?

    • Rob Ambrose says:

      The thing about this is, not only is it morally and ethically wrong, its also incredibly strategically wrong.

      The reason why American born Muslims are able to be radicalized via the internet is precisely because they feel disconnected from their own society. They don’t feel ownership of it.

      Ridiculous rhetoric like this only makes them feel more so, and more easily radicalized.

      And that would be a scary thing because frankly, American born terrorists are almost impossible to stop.

      • Crogged says:

        Some of my best friends are Baptists going to hell because their doctrine is wrong about baptism, salvation and pianos in the church . In 1960 the fact that Mr. Kennedy was a Catholic was an issue-some voters didn’t consider Mr. Romney a ‘Christian’ because Mormon.

        I’m with you Rob- and the key is to do as you did in this post, describe the issue and forget the word ‘crazy’. Trump isn’t ‘crazy’, Cruz isn’t ‘crazy’, Christians aren’t ‘crazy’ and Muslims aren’t ‘crazy’. I prefer ‘profoundly unserious’ myself.

    • Bobo Amerigo says:

      Ted Cruz is even less electable than Donald Trump

      Vox says his policies are anti-middle class and anti-elderly.

  4. johngalt says:

    This is OT, but I got a helpful mailing from another of Chris’s former nemeses here in Houston, Steven Hotze. He sent me a list of who he is supporting in the upcoming city run-off election, based entirely on whether or not they supported the recently failed HERO equal rights ordinance. It was emblazoned with “No men in women’s restrooms!” and referred to HERO as the “bathroom ordinance.” It also reminded me that I was free, by law, to take his mailed into the voting both with me; which I intend to do so that I can be sure to vote against any and all Hotze-supported candidates.

  5. Rob Ambrose says:

    Not really understanding this whole debate on “is this shooting a terrorist issue or a gun control one” thing, as if it can only be one or the other.

    Its both, clearly both, and each issue creates a synergy with the other.

    A great example of that just happened. In London, the terrorist wounded 3 (and would have killed dozens if he had access to the arsenal the CA terrorists did). In California, they killed 14, wounded 17.

    Of course we need to confront the terrorist threat. But that in no way whatsoever reduces the threat from readily accessible guns.

    If anything, the threat of domestic radicalization greatly increases the need for tighter gun control legislation.

    The right is looking totally ridiculous with their disagreement with the statement that “suspected terrorists should be prevented from buying guns”. That’s not a position that’s going to fly with most Americans.

    • Doug says:

      “A great example of that just happened. In London, the terrorist wounded 3 (and would have killed dozens if he had access to the arsenal the CA terrorists did). In California, they killed 14, wounded 17.”


      • Rob Ambrose says:

        There’s always going to be a black market where well connected ppl can get guns.

        That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make it as tough as possible for potential killers. Obviously, the attacker in London wasn’t well connected. In America, he wouldn’t have needed to be.

        Just because we can’t magically solve ALL mass killings doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make laws that will stop SOME of them.

      • Griffin says:

        We need to repeal our laws against murder! It’s clearly not working see as how many murders there are everyday and right now criminals are the only ones who get access to the ability to murder, whereas law-abiding citizens can’t! Get your jackboots off me you damn National Bolshevik thugs!

      • MassDem says:

        The attackers in Paris probably got their guns in the Balkans. There a many weapons left over from the years of civil war there.
        Once they get guns into any European nation, it is relatively easy to move them across the borders of the EU.
        Kind of like how crimes in states with strict gun laws are committed using guns that arrive from more lenient states.
        I heard recently on the news that 2/3 of the guns used in crimes in MA come from out-of-state–thanks red states!

    • Gun control?

      For the first time in my lifetime, a sitting president has made a national, televised address promoting unconstitutional means of stripping U.S. citizens of their constitutional rights without due process, let alone adjudication in a court of law, or, God forbid, a trial by a jury of one’s peers. Furthermore, one has no means of learning of this taking until one actually tries to exercise those rights, nor any means of learning why they were stripped away in the first place, nor any right of appeal, nor any method to remove one’s self from the black list.

      Why is this not a problem for you, Rob?

      As for more gun control law, California already has universal background checks, magazine capacity limits (and you can’t legally purchase a semi-auto AR-style rifle with a readily detachable magazine), a waiting period, a one-gun-per-month purchase limit, may-issue concealed carry, and *every* other restriction under the sun touted as “reasonable gun safety measures” by the gun grabbing fringe. None of these measures deterred the San Bernardino terrorists in the least, nor were they phased by standing law proscribing pipe bombs, or, for that matter, murder.

      So what, exactly, do you hope to actually accomplish, Rob?

      • texan5142 says:

        Boo! Good God man get a grip.

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        Its not unconstitutional Tracy. Taking away guns RIGHT NOW would be. But nobody is doing that. Obama is trying to get congress to PASS gun control, which, by doing so, would make it constitutional.

        Amendments can be changed or repealed. They’re called “amendments” for crying out loud.

        Although, I’m not advocating for repeal of the 2nd amenent, nor or many others.

        I don’t claim to have all the answers. The problem is incredibly complex and the unfortunate fact may end up being that its too late.

        I tend tobbase my personal policy preferences on empiricism though. And when the country with the laxest gun laws (by far) ALSO has a much, much higher amount of mass shootings/gun deaths/gun violence etc, that says something to me, and suggests that just maybe those other countries are onto something.

        When I see Australia do a gun buyback program after a mass shootings and have gun violence go way down, I give that some weight.

        And also, the “California has strict gun laws and look what happened” thing only reinforces that any effective gun control measures need to be national laws, applying to every state.

      • MassDem says:

        First, I did not know you were so young! Since this happened before you were born, you may not know about the 1994 law banning some types of semi-automatic weapons signed by Bill Clinton. The law existed for 10 years, until Congress failed to renew it in 2004.

        Second, in his address, Obama was not “promoting unconstitutional means of stripping U.S. citizens of their constitutional rights without due process”. I can see how you were carried away by youthful exuberance to say that. What Obama actually said was, “To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun.” and “We also need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons like the ones that were used in San Bernardino.” You can check the transcript yourself:
        In light of the Supreme Court just today refusing to hear a case on an assault weapons ban, I’m not too worried that it every restriction on gun ownership is unconstitutional–after all, in the text of the Heller decision, it is stated:

        “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
        It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
        manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
        weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
        or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
        doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
        felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
        in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
        laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
        arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
        “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
        of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”

        Finally, with respect to to purchase of the assault weapons used in San Bernardino– apparently there is a huge loophole in CA law called the “bullet button loophole” that lets people purchase (and later modify) weapons that would otherwise be illegal in CA.
        Read more about it here:

        But, it’s nice to see a young’un like you posting–keep up the good work!

      • Doug says:

        “Its not unconstitutional Tracy. Taking away guns RIGHT NOW would be. But nobody is doing that. Obama is trying to get congress to PASS gun control, which, by doing so, would make it constitutional.”

        Passed by Congress or not, you cannot take away Constitutional rights via a secret list.

      • Creigh says:

        Tracy, if it’s any comfort, several of the liberal blogs I read also strongly criticize the no-fly list.

      • MassDem, read your own excerpt of Obama’s speech. If you are on his secret list, he wants to make it so you can’t buy a gun. Any gun. Period. End of story. Hence the phrasing, “unconstitutional.” Actually, *blatantly* unconstitutional. But, hey, I suppose that’s what we should expect from the party of internment, eh?

      • Creigh, I, too, find the no-fly list deeply disturbing. The only reason freedom of movement was not included in the Bill of Rights is that it never occurred to the Framers that our government would infringe on such a *basic* liberty.

      • johngalt says:

        Cut the melodrama, Tracy. Nobody’s buying it. The SCOTUS just this week upheld an “assault weapon” ban. We will see whether what you consider blatantly unconstitutional attempts to strip citizens of their right to overcompensate for other deficiencies pass muster with the only nine people who matter.

        There are already reports that the California shooters bought some portion of their arsenal from an online dealer based in Texas, thus getting around California’s laws through a straw man purchase. The gun laws of California or Chicago are only as strong as those of their neighbors, which cripples them. Our examples from every other civilized country on earth demonstrate that gun control laws work in every sense.

        You find the no-fly list “deeply disturbing” as it infringes on a right so obvious (to you) that the framers (in whose mind you seem to occupy) never considered stating explicitly. Yet you are totally comfortable with interpreting the framers’ Second Amendment to mean that a single individual could amass an arsenal greater than the firepower of the entire English army in the colonies in 1776.

        You are losing this war. My social media feeds are filled with incensed mothers and there ain’t no way you’re going to win that one. This is way different than a year ago, or five years ago. You might want to consider whether the totalitarian approach of the NRA is the best way to preserve your rights to own firearms. Good luck waiting this one out.

      • unarmedandunafraid says:

        They should have put something in there about ” life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ with an emphasis on “life”.

      • unarmedandunafraid says:

        What i meant to say-

      • MassDem says:

        Tracy, I have no problem with reforming the no-fly list to allow due process for American citizens. Whether or not it is used to restrict 2nd Amendment rights, the fact that currently there is no due process for the approximately 10,000 Americans on the no-fly list is in itself unconstitutional (yeah,the vast majority-97%-of names on it are of foreign nationals who are already barred by federal law from buying guns in the US unless they have permanent resident status).

        As for the “party of interment”, yes we 100% own the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII, as it was carried out by FDR over the vigorous objections of the GOP. Oh wait–only one politician actually protested the internment. But he was a Republican (Ralph Carr, Governor of CO). Score 1 pt for your side.

        I am less worried about mistakes that either party has made in the past, rather than the politicians of today who totally embrace those grievous errors. Donald Trump has said, among other things, that he would like to set up a database to track all Muslims in the country. Talk about your secret unconstitutional lists!

      • Doug says:

        “The SCOTUS just this week upheld an “assault weapon” ban.”

        It did not uphold anything. It simply did not hear the case. Are we now going to deem that the supreme court “rules” on the 99.2% of the petitions that it does not grant each year? That could get interesting.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        TT…I suspect we have been and will be in store for many “for the first time in my lifetime” events.

        I even recall the first time I had a President go on TV to suggest that torture was hunky-dory and when that President created the unconstitutional freedom of movement restrictions. Heck, I can recall a time when an administration was first explaining how warrantless wiretaps were a good thing and reading the emails of US citizens was not a problem at all.

      • johngalt says:

        Yes, Doug, that is how this works. A lower court upheld this ban (in a Chicago suburb), meaning that it deemed it to be constitutional. When the SCOTUS refused to hear the case, it was saying that it did not find any grounds to challenge this ruling. In other words, it upheld this ban.

    • Crogged says:

      And since no one reads the Second Amendment as it was originally intended 200 years ago (because there was no standing army the citizens of a state could have a gun to protect the nation) then yes, we will someday have to repeal and replace the Second Amendment with a law which reflects a better nation. Probably won’t happen in my lifetime, but as JG points out, someday it will.

  6. MassDem says:

    Maybe someone has reported on this already–Finland is about to give all of its citizens $870 a month. It will be interesting to see how that works out for them. That is one of Chris’s ideas that I would really like to see happen here. But then, I’m a Dem, and you know we just love wealth transfers (from rich to poor, not in current direction)! 😉

    • flypusher says:

      I freely admit, I’d love an extra $870 a month. I’d have a bit of economic stimulus in mind for that $.

    • Rob Ambrose says:

      Is it a MINIMUM of that? I.e. if you make more then that, do you still get it? Or does every citizen get it regardless?

    • Rob Ambrose says:

      There’s lot of interesting, progressive policies being enacted in other countries. This is one. Another, in Canada, is the weed thing.

      Justin Trudeau’s throne speech on Friday (basically outlining the gov’t policies for the upcoming Parliament session) clearly stated that Canada will become the first Nation in the world to fully legalize, regulate, and tax marijuana. This is such a no brainer, it will likely be legalized everywhere within 10-15 years.

      -Tax revenues will go way up, and this is a tax no one will mind. Even with an exorbitant tax (30% or so) weed prices will likely drop, as legalization will allow industrial sized production, causing prices to drop dramatically. Even if prices slightly rise, almost all users will gladly accept that tax in return for removing the legal concerns.

      – criminality and organized crime will go down

      – the cost of law enforcement and incarceration will go down significantly (even more so in the US, where weed offenses still commonly draw long sentences).

      Those are some pretty enournous benefits. I’m sure there’s some downsides, but they are not readily apparent.

      Unfortunately with regards to America, the misguided ‘exceptionalism’ thing likely means delayed adoption (or flat out rejection) of any policy, no matter how successful, that came from some other country.

    • Gotta *take* it from somebody else, first.

      • Ryan Ashfyre says:

        No one in this or any other country made it based solely on their efforts alone, myself included. We’re all living in a world that was created and continues to grow by the efforts of innumerable numbers of people and it is nothing short of fitting that we should be expected to give something back, if that something is to be used for the betterment of all.

        And frankly, you’re a “taker” as much as anyone, loathe though you may be to admit it. If you’ve ever eaten meat in your life, then you’re feasting on what was once the life of a living creature in this world to keep yourself alive.

        When you were a child, you likely took a great deal from your parents or whomever raised you to suit your own selfish interests any number of times, without any expectation of paying them back.

        And on any given day, just like any other living, breathing human being, you take from others in small, often insignificant ways to propel yourself forward, and they take from you in turn. It’s just the way humans are, and a strong individual knows to accept that and learns to deal with it.

        This whole notion of “takers” is, frankly, nothing but a farce for those who either fail to recognize it within themselves or who are just trying to stir a substanceless sense of controversy to suit their own whims. I’m genuinely unsure of which one you are, my friend.

      • Hi Tracey
        “Gotta *take* it from somebody else, first.”

        That would be true if money was an actual “thing” – but it’s not – money is a symbol

        Robert Heinlein said it best in his
        “Beyond This Horizon”
        Right at the start
        A simple explanation that
        The money supply should increase as the economy does
        Which if you think of money in the economy as similar in function to blood in a body makes perfect sense
        The other side of this is that the increase in money supply is normally added directly to the basic living stipend
        (We could simply mail a cheque to all citizens)

        Directly from the book

        We call the system “finance” and the symbols “money”
        The symbolic structure should bear a one to one relationship to the physical structure of production and consumption .
        It’s my job to keep track of the actual growth of the physical processes and recommend to the policy board changes in the symbol structure to match those in the physical structure

        These two simple rules are the opposite of what we do
        Money supply is NOT linked to the physical economy
        The increase in money supply goes to those who hold assets (the 0.1%)

        So NO we do not have to *take* it from somebody else”

      • Doug says:

        Wow, Ryan. Taxing and redistribution are the same as a parent caring for a child? Free, voluntary exchange among adults is “taking”? Seriously? Where does armed robbery fit in?

      • Ryan Ashfyre says:

        >] “Wow, Ryan. Taxing and redistribution are the same as a parent caring for a child? Free, voluntary exchange among adults is “taking”? Seriously? Where does armed robbery fit in?”

        With all respect, Doug, your lack of appreciation for the world that adults live in is genuinely depressing.

        Every exchange that goes on is voluntary? Rly? When an adult is stuck in a dead-end job and has to deal with an ass of a boss who rides them to the point of exhaustion every day – a story far too common in modern America – that’s a perfect example of taking. One can only look at it as voluntary through the context of an established agreement between employer and employee, but that’s just sugarcoating an otherwise unpleasant reality.

        And please, don’t go off and say that “well, if they don’t like it, then they can just quit,” because that is entirely missing the point and anyone with eyes to see knows that it isn’t as simple as that for many, many people.

        I’m not interested in arguing semantics here, but I’ll give you one more example and one that hits more close to home, as it pertains to the give-and-take relationship between a parent and a child; and I’ll even give you a courtesy and speak with respect to myself.

        There were many moments in my childhood, I’m sure there are for virtually every child, where I was selfish and impossible to deal with for all kinds of stupid, inane reasons. There were times when I manipulated the hell out of my mother just to get what I wanted, sometimes for something as inconsequential as an ice-cream cone. I took plenty from her, and often times I just said “thank you” or “I love you, mom” just to say it and get her off my back, without so much as an ounce of sincerity behind it.

        And it goes both ways. As I grew up, I knew there were times when she did exactly the same thing to me, and although I didn’t like being on what I perceived as the losing end at times, I gradually learned to accept it because those were the rules of the game and I even grew to respect my mother more because of it because there were many instances in which she displayed an infallible position of strength that I learned to draw from.

        None of that is an impediment to the fact that, to this day, we still love each other as mother and son in a genuine, honest way, but we’re also still selfish individuals, just like every other human on the face of the planet, and we’re all, in the end, the proverbial centers of our own respective universes.

        We are all takers in our way, and there is nothing at all wrong with that. Just like with capitalism, it’s only a problem when it goes out of control and needs to be forcibly reined in.

        That aside, I’m not even going to give you the dignity of a response to your asinine “armed robbery” assertion. At this point, it should be painfully clear as to why that is.

      • Creigh says:

        Sanders supporters and Trump supporters agree on one thing; the bastards have been taking from us for too long, and the “establishment” can’t or won’t stop them. People are going to turn elsewhere; the only question is will it be Sanders or Trump.

    • Ryan Ashfyre says:

      Depending on what happens in the next couple of years, this could actually prove to be quite the opportune moment for many reform-minded Republicans like Lifer. Depending on how the results pan out, they could use this as a platform by which to advocate for a basic minimum income and show the people real, observable results.

  7. Rob Ambrose says:

    OT, but if anybody is looking for a good historical watch on Netflix, I highly recommend Ken Burns The Roosevelt’s, about Theodore and FDR.

    Fascinating look at two great Americans. These men literally embodied leadership, and a sense of country over personao gain.

    In a way, it gives one hope. As bad as things look now politically, they were likely as bad or worse back then in the Gilded Age, and we managed to make it through all right .

    We just need real leadership.

  8. Rob Ambrose says:

    So it seems like police coverups are the rule, not the exception.

    In literally almost every single case of a cop killing that video evidence surfaces (unknown by police at the time), the cops statements are either disingenuous at best, and flat out lies at worst.

    Seems to me the shooting of unarmed men (mostly black, but not exclusively. Although it IS almost exclusive low income folks) is deeply intertwined by cops covering up for their buddies later. Perhaps that’s the legislative answer.

    Enact laws that any police officer who is determined by an independent panel to have lied on their report is immediately fired. Period.

    Overnight, you’d see improvement. In today’s day and age, you never know when a camera is on you, thus making cover ups far, far more risky, as well as easier for good cops to NOT cover up.

    I’ve served in a combat infantry unit. I know how much pressure there is to have each others back, and I can only imagine that any officer who DOES want to be honest in their statement would face severe social ostracism if they did so. Legislation like this gives them an “out”. If someone’s livelihood is directly at risk, that’s a pretty good response to any pressure levied on the cops.

    “look man, I’d like to help, but I’m not risking my career for this” is pretty reasonable. But right now there’s absolutely no incentive for good cops to tell the truth, and plenty for them to lie.

    • Rob Ambrose says:

      The cop who stuck the gun in this man’s face for trying to enter his own house didn’t find any drugs on him during his illegal search, so they charged him with disorderly conduct.

      If not for this video, that man would still be facing those charges and a maniac cop would be out on the loose.

      These aren’t isolated incidents. They happen every single day. How many men (mostly black) have done and are currently doing time for crimes that did not even happen because a cop decided he didn’t like his face? And we wonder why there’s rage at cops?

      As I said above, I served in a combat infantry unit, which would attract very similar personality types as cops. I served with some of the finest men I’ve ever met that remain brothers to this day. I ALSO know first hand that these jobs attract a disproportionately higher number of true sociopaths and power tripping psychos.

      If you’re someone who experiences an almost sexual pleasure at lording power and authority over weak people, of COURSE you’d be attracted to these types of jobs.

      There are some fine cops. There are a significant amount of people who shouldn’t even be on the streets too. Acknowledging that truth in no way minimizes the good work of the good ones out there.

    • flypusher says:

      The most charitable explanation for some of these discrepancies would be that human memory isn’t really that accurate, especially when a memory is being formed in a very stressful situation. Of course planting a taser on the guy you just shot in the back while running away signals an obvious, deliberate lie. Complete, unedited video does not lie. Fortunately the momentum is there to someday have body cams on all the cops.

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        That explanation doesn’t hold water Fly, not when the video evidence shows pretty much the exact opposite (reports says LM stepped towards officer. He didn’t. Report says officer was backpedaling and firing. He wasn’t), FIVE cops corroborated the story (they didn’t ALL have stress induced misremembering that conveniently misremembered the same thing, and which just happened to be the version that exonerates the cop), and the BK footage that was deleted by cops.

        Its the thin blue line. Its enforced not only by the carrot, but also the stick. I’m sure many cops WANT to protect fellow cops. But for the ones that don’t, there will be intense social pressure and intimidation to get these cops in line.

        Remember that being a cop, like being a soldier, is more then a job, its a lifestyle and an identity. For a typical office worker, to be socially ostracized at work is distressing, but likely not devastating. Most ppl have social circles outside their work.

        For many cops, your colleagues are also your social circle. You hang out with your cop buddies. You drink at cop bars. You go in vacation with your friends. For ppl in these lifestyles, the threat of social ostracism and intimidation at work is far more devastating and effective.

  9. flypusher says:

    The GOP tries to woo millennials:

    They can take some comfort in the fact that the 35 and under crowd doesn’t vote as much as older people, and they’re probably not going to be enthusiastic for Hillary as they were for Obama. But seriously if you are under 35, and you’re not White and/or really rich, and/or a religious conservative, what exactly are any of the GOP candidates offering that appeals to you? You may be a fiscal conservative, but you should also be considering your personal economic interests, as well as what society needs to function. More $ in your pocket is great, unless it’s the sort of monkey’s paw deal that means the safety net and the infrastructure start fraying. Do you really think that cutting taxes on the wealthy is going to trickle any $ down to you?

    • Griffin says:

      I meet plenty of upper-middle class college kids who self-identify as “economic conservatives”, which is short for “cut my Dad’s taxes so he can buy me a new car”. I do meet plenty of people who really do believe in trickle-down economics, perhaps because they don’t know much about economics and it’s intuituve. And there’s the occasional contrarion who self-identifies as “conservartive” just to be the opposite of most other college kids.

      I notice that 90% of people I meet self-identify as “fiscally conservative” when asked, but then when I ask them what the hell they mean by that they aren’t sure. It roughly translates to “I don’t want the government to waste money”, which goes to show how well conservatives have framed the argument when people believe not wanting to waste money automatically makes you conservative.

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        If tgats the definition, then we’re all Conservatives.

        Is there anybody, anywhere, how would disagree with the statement “I don’t want gov’t to waste money?”

      • Griffin says:

        It’s a complete victory on the part of conservative strategists to have an ironman of their fiscal positions and a strawman of liberals fiscal position widely accepted even by supposedly liberal college students. This is what happnes when liberals/moderates go on the defensive and let conservatives trample all over them in terms of framing the debate.

      • moslerfan says:

        The fiscal conservative misunderstanding of money and debt issues has a long and illustrious history. The argument that the national debt is a burden and a constraint is easy to understand, appeals to common sense and personal experience, and tends to make one sound politically serious. The distinction between a money issuer (the Federal Government) and money users (households, businesses, and State and local governments) is lost, even among people who really ought to know better. Fortunately more and more people are learning about money and debt and are pushing back in blogs, comment sections, and letters to the editor.

        The real concern, of course, is wasting human energy and creativity. A huge culprit is unemployment. As Keynes wrote, “The Conservative belief that there is some law of nature which prevents men from being employed, that it is ‘rash’ to employ men, and that it is financially ‘sound’ to maintain a tenth of the population in idleness for an indefinite period, is crazily improbable — the sort of thing which no man could believe who had not had his head fuddled with nonsense for years and years.”

      • Griffin says:

        Another MMT Post-Keynesian? If you have a blog point me to it I’d be happy to read it. And I’ve tried to explain to people that a government that issues its own money can not, by definition, “go broke”. Their usual reply is something along the lines of “WEEEEIMAR REPUBLIC!!!” not understanding the unique situation of the extreme burden imposed on the Weimar republic after the treaty of Versailles alongside the destruction of some of Germany’s production during the war.

      • moslerfan says:

        I have to nominate Warren Mosler’s book “Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy” as the most important economics book of the last 25 years (sorry, Mr. Piketty). The book is available here for free: . It’s also available from Amazon for $1, might be a more convenient format than pdf. Mosler also lists some good resources on his page.

        I think the fundamental message of MMT, which is undoubtedly stated clearly somewhere but I’ve never found it explicitly, is this: The economic wealth of an individual can be measured by money or debt, but the economic wealth of a nation can only be measured by what that nation can produce for itself. To believe that for a nation like the US that debt is a burden or money is a constraint is to fall victim to the fallacy of composition.

        Hyperinflation in Weimar was caused by external factors – one being destruction of production facilities but the most important being huge reparations payable in gold imposed by the victors of WWI. The demand for reparations in gold turned Germany from a monetarily sovereign money issuer into a money user. Money users can go broke.

      • moslerfan says:

        Maybe a better way to characterize Weimar’s predicament is to say that since a society’s economic wealth is determined by what it can produce for itself, Weimar was forced into poverty by the demand for reparations in gold – because it had no capacity to produce gold.

  10. Rob Ambrose says:

    In a weird sort of way, enacting gun control laws is the EASY part of the problem.

    The other is that there is either a) a relatively large amount of complete pieces of shit in America or b) there’s the same amount of PoS’s as in other modern nations but (for some reason) there is much less stigma to being a PoS in America, and so the PoS’s that ARE here don’t bother biding what’s in their disgusting shriveled soils.

    Can you imagine? On top of the tragedy of dealing with a loved one murdered they have to deal with these assholes harrasing her and posting her information on line.

    In what other nation would a victims family need to trademark their dead daughters name so that groups don’t use it to generate money and hate?

    Mind boggling.

    • flypusher says:

      Sandy Hook “truthers” are the lowest of the low. It’s the price we must pay to have nice things like a 1st Amendment.

  11. texan5142 says:

    Just bought both the kindle version and the paperback edition. Peace be the journey my northern Texas expat.

  12. michaelhl says:

    This might be a peek at the future of Leftist crazy.

    As Chris has often said, you harness and develop this sort of base and eventually they become uncontrollable. Looks like some of the liberal Brown professors are starting to see this. Very interesting that they call it basically Leftist McCarthism.

    • Creigh says:

      I went to college in the late 60s and early 70s. What an exciting time to be in college. Sounds like this is another one.

    • flypusher says:

      It’s the rudeness towards invited speakers that disturbs me the most. By all means protest outside if you don’t like that person’s views. By all means push for policies (if your school doesn’t already have them) that make sure that students have some input into who gets chosen. But one of the purposes of a proper university is to allow for the expression and critical examination of ALL ideas.

      I spend a lot of my time on the campuses of Rice and UH (professionally and socially). There are sometimes little rumblings of this nature, but fortunately nothing on the level of Brown so far.

      Also, disarming the campus police? Seriously? Bad idea in this country, with so many guns around. You’d be better off focusing on their hiring standards and training and policy.

      • Griffin says:

        I’ve met these people at my college and they aren’t the brightest bunch. There was a group of them that would constantly use “white feminist” as a slur because apparently white feminists are racist or hate third-world countries? In other words they didn’t consider them pro-social justice enough. Oddly enough though the same group hated the idea of “free college” because they thought it literally meant “free” college, not “publicly funded college”, and they self identified as conservative on economic issues but pro-social justice otherwise.

        It’s an odd thing for upper middle class kids to want to ban Huckleberry Finn to “protect” minorities but then not support making it easier for them to get healthcare or a college education, because that may require them paying higher taxes (and thus actually contributing something).

    • Rob Ambrose says:

      There IS leftist buffoonery, for sure.

      Safe spaces, trigger warnings, GMO’s etc.

      The difference is, the idiocy is on the fringe, whereas the idiocy of the right IS the right.

      I’m also not wanting to associate large college movements of either side of the spectrum with the mainstream. College has kind of always been a place where ppl for the first time ever discover their voice, and also that everything offends them.

  13. MassDem says:

    Some progressives are idiots. I’ve seen a number of articles on Salon written by Bernie supporters who refuse to vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination. The latest one, entitled “Just let the Republicans win: Maybe things need to get really bad before America wakes up”–well, it’s pretty clear where the author is going with this.

    News flash–we already did this with GW Bush. How well did that work out for the country?

    These left-wing idiots are thinking along the same lines that their rightwing brethren do–the farther from the center they move, the more successful their party will be. Spare me from the true believers.

  14. tuttabellamia says:

    I don’t like open confrontation when the attack is personal. Rush lost any chance of even an ounce of respect from me after his horrible tirade against Sandra Fluke, the lady who went before Congress about birth control. His “style” was shameless and humiliating.

    • tuttabellamia says:

      Sorry. That was meant as a reply to Griffin way down below, regarding the contrasting styles of Rush Limbaugh and Dennis Prager.

    • MassDem says:

      God knows what Rush Limbaugh truly believes. His schtick is all an act. From a 2008 NYT magazine article (before he went too far with the Sandra Fluke commentary):

      “Limbaugh can afford to live the way he wants. When we met he was on the verge of signing a new eight-year contract with his syndicator, Premiere Radio Networks. He estimated that it would bring in about $38 million a year. To sweeten the deal, he said he was also getting a nine-figure signing bonus. (A representative from Premiere would not confirm the deal.) “Do you know what bought me all this?” he asked, waving his hand in the general direction of his prosperity. “Not my political ideas. Conservatism didn’t buy this house. First and foremost I’m a businessman. My first goal is to attract the largest possible audience so I can charge confiscatory ad rates. I happen to have great entertainment skills, but that enables me to sell airtime.””

      Here is the rest of the article

      I think the Donald has noticed and is using the Limbaugh playbook.

      • flypusher says:

        “God knows what Rush Limbaugh truly believes. His schtick is all an act.”

        Which makes the gutlessness of so many GOPers who would refuse to call him out whenever he crossed the line all the more disgusting.

      • Stephen says:

        I have a black engineer friend who listens to Rush to see what the loon will say next. He thinks Rush does not believe his own inrhetoric but thinks Hannity does. Rush does have an audience but it is a minority.

  15. Tuttabella says:

    In addition to buying myself a copy, I will recommend it to the Houston Public Library and maybe they will purchase a few copies to put in circulation if it receives enough recommendations.

  16. Pseudoperson Randomian says:

    Lifer, Google Play? Got a bit of credit on there that I’m saving for this…

    • goplifer says:

      Google play has stopped accepted new submissions while their work out some problems they had with digital rights protection. Stalled for now. It’s been almost a year

    • tuttabellamia says:

      Pseudo, maybe buy yourself a digital album from Google Music?

      • Pseudoperson Randomian says:

        Eh, I got streaming at $7.99 when it first came out, plus YouTube red now. So, no buying albums for me.

        I’ll just buy some other book. Maybe Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s memoir…

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I prefer CDs and vinyl records, but for streaming, Google Music works best for me.

  17. Brent Uzzell says:

    Will the fever ever break? Texas has gone nuts. Texas Republicans are moving to put a resolution of secession on the March primary ballot. It is not a new topic, it’s been bantered about all my life but I don’t remember it ever getting this far. I wonder how long my professional friends will continue to support the GOP in TX? Seems more of us leave with each passing election.

    • goplifer says:

      I just got an email from a friend in Texas indicating that the full SREC rejected that proposal. Can’t believe it ever got that far, but at least they did reject it.

  18. Stephen says:

    Reading through Dr. Reich’s Saving Capitalism. Many of your ideas are mirrored there. I like to read and associate with smart people. One thing he thinks is people will form new coalitions across traditional party lines. Those who want like you to reform the system and those fighting for status quo. He wants a more even distribution of economic bargaining power rather than redistribution of wealth and income by taxing and redistribution. As he pointed out correctly I believe, both major parties are captured by Wall Street and wealth special interest. If Trump or Cruz are the GOP nominee the Rebublican country club set will support Hillary . They really do not have loyalty to the GOP but only to keep things the same which serves money interest. The GOP is in civil war between the populist faction and the country club faction. Moderate Republicans like me are homeless right now.

  19. flypusher says:

    Cool. Although I’m quite internet connected, there’s enough old-school in me to still appreciate the traditional hard copy. Maybe someday I’ll get you to sign it for me.

    Now back to some live football!!

  20. 1mime says:

    Hope you sell bunches and make a mint, Lifer! Just in time for Christmas, too!

    • Griffin says:

      I already read it but maybe I’ll send a copy to my Uncle so he’ll finally calm. Than again he might just throw the book in the garbage and call it “liberal lies”. This is a man who buys the books of AM radio hosts (Dennis Prager being his favorite).

      Lifer have you ever read any of the generic wingnut books that are in constant circulation, being pumped out by places like Regnery Publishing and bought in bulk by hard-right think tanks? Once you’ve read one you’ve basically read them all but I still recommend reading one as a window into the weird logic of the far-right. It’s basically a checklist for logical fallacies, to the point of bordering on self-parody.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I love Dennis Prager. He’s one of the conservative radio hosts (besides Michael Medved) who’s not mean-spirited. I remember one of his shows focused on how the typical American family used to place great importance on having a musical instrument in the house, such as a piano, or the prevalence of books and libraries in the house, and how those things have lost importance over time.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Prager and Medved focus on culture in addition to politics. I like the shows about culture.

      • Griffin says:

        I can’t stand him. Whenever I hear him talking it’s either about global warming denialism or how legalizing gay marriage is “homosexualizing society”. This is a guy who said that colleges were turning students bisexual, that gay marriage was comparable to Islamic terrorism, that LGBT rights would lead to a fascist takeover, that the repeal of Prop was the equivalent of the Egyptian coup, and that Keith Ellison taking the oath on the Koran was more dangerous to America than 9/11.

        I actually think he’s worse than Rush Limbaugh because Prager says horrible things and then hides behind a nice “tone”, whereas Limbaugh at least has the decency to not be passively agressive and instead be openly confrontational. Prager is style over substance par excellance in my view.

      • Griffin says:

        “…that the repeal of Prop 8 was the American equivalent of the Egyptian coup…

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I usually just seek out his shows about culture, nostalgia, and “happiness as a serious matter.”

      • tuttabellamia says:

        There was nothing decent about Rush’s tirade against Sandra Fluke. I can’t stand the man.

      • flypusher says:

        “There was nothing decent about Rush’s tirade against Sandra Fluke. I can’t stand the man.”

        Indeed. But the War on Women is just a Dem fiction.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 454 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: