The Hairy Beast

BST Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About The Hairy Beast

  • Rank
    5,000 Post Club!


  • Interests (Hobbies, favorite activities, etc.):
    Fish flies, plugs, jigs, meat.
  1. Major studios are obviously gun shy over the Sony Hack. Universal has pulled "Team America: World Police" from distribution. I don't know who wrote and pitched "The Interview" to Sony, but I'm guessing anybody who had anything to do with it is now a leper. Granted, the NORKS might not hack the next studio to feature Franco and Rogen in a film, but they might. If you were a producer, would you be willing to take a chance? I guess it depends on how angry the Koreans are at the two and if they're the kind of people who holds grudges and take stuff personally. I'd hate to have an entire Stalinist dictatorship mad at me.
  2. I was on the phone with a guy last night at my job and he asked me the stupidest question I have heard all week. He was petitioning a family member in Sierra Leon through the US embassy in Dakar and asked "Because of the Ebola epidemic, what plans do you have to expedite visas?" "You mean to bring more of them here faster?" "Yes." "Um...nothing so far."
  3. Reporting and taking a guided formal tour are not the same. Or they used to not be the same. If they are, then I am proud to proclaim I reported on Red Hook brewery last Saturday afternoon for a hour.
  4. I think the appropriate question here is why on earth wouldn't we want the press to report on these camps? In the Olden Days they used to call what's happening down word that begins with "n"... It's on the tip of my tongue... You know, I'm going to wake up tonight and remember that word. Just can't get it now.
  5. Somebody's being willfully obtuse, eh? Robert, you are exactly right; a publicly traded corporation spreads its ownership across thousands of investors via millions of shares. Each Investor presumably has his own opinions and beliefs. As such, public corporations can't claim a religious conscience in the way a private family owned business can.
  6. I don't think it's deceit, it's a clash of philosophies. Conservatives often regard liberal positions that seem so outlandish, they think the liberals must be lying or obfuscating. Ditto liberals. I think in both situations, both sides are sincere.
  7. Meagan McArdle wrote a great column on this topic today at Bloomberg. She argues that in most political controversies, it's clear which side is seeking to impose its will on the other, for good or Ill. The EPA vs Ranchers, or whatever. In this case both are claiming coersion. Religious business owners claim they are forced to violate their consciences to buy free contraceptives for female employees. Libs like you counter that these owners are forcing religious beliefs on workers. McArdle sides with the former. As for the counter claim, I find it a bit tortured. If I choose not to buy you something, I am forcing myself on YOU? McArdle again: If my company chooses not to buy me lunch every day, it is not denying me access to adequate nutrition services. Food can be had anywhere, it is incumbent on me to help myself to it at my own expense. The advantage here is I get to buy whatever I want. Likewise, if it is so generous as to provide sixteen entrees for free and I want something different, I am hardly being imposed on if I buy something else. McArdle gets into the differences between negative and positive rights and the evolution between the public and private spheres as well. Very thoughtful column, I recommend you check it out.
  8. False equivalence; it's helpful to look at context. Pro forma sessions, as we all know, was a tactic dreamed up by democrats to block recess appointments under president Bush. But Bush agreed to abide by the rules. Then, when the republicans assayed the same tactic, president Obama bulled ahead anyway. Result: unanimous decision by SCOTUS, slapping him down. Had Obama played by the same rules as Bush, rules devised by his own party, he would not have ever been humiliated thus.
  9. And by the way, how do you invoke crime as a rationale for limitations on second amendment rights while dismissing actual stats as "irrelevant"? You might want to think that one through a bit more.
  10. Except you called him a klansman. That's a slur. How do you address a cultural illness if you can't point to it without being attacked? How is the source of violence irrelevant, unless it doesn't support your worldview?
  11. at least he's out of the bubble. We will have to see how he does, going forward.
  12. hate and contempt. Yet we're the bad guys.
  13. good enough for me. You're a brother.
  14. I don't want to push you too hard, but I want you to think about what you wrote. You don't dispute the stats, which means you believe epanzella is speaking the truth. And yet, stating the truth makes him a "race warrior" and therefore a bad person. I agree these numbers are uncomfortable, but how does facing reality reflect poorly on the person who confronts it?