>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
^I don't want to see you calling the fire department when your home catches fire, Señor rugged individualist.


Can you not read or something? I want government funding to the extent that they're preventing the infringement of rights and offering recourse, not "directing industry" with forcibly appropriated money or providing services any more complex than laying pavement. Any fire could be arson, you need a fire department to protect private property. Full-blown state health care addressing self-inflicted conditions with other people's money is garbage.

Ever hear about the guy in Sweden with the brain tumor? The state didn't like his chances and declared it inoperable to save money. He flew to private facility and paid for the operation, and lived for many more years. How kind and wonderful socialist health care is.

Learn what Socialism is.. do you really want to Live in CUBA or Russia? for the next 4 years.

Surely not, but it's worth nothing that economic and political freedom are two completely different things and they don't even have elections in Cuba. And yes, economically, Cuba is even more socialist than we are. Just this year they ALLOWED their citizens to buy computers. People don't risk their lives fleeing to America on rafts and banana boats for nothing, they're trying to escape living life as just another lowest common denominator. They want the opportunity to live, not merely survive in a so-called socialist utopia. Unfortunately, they don't realize the hyperinflationary depression brought on by our socialist interventions they're now stepping into. Out of the frying pan and into the fire, as they might say.

downvote banshee for ignoring what i wrote and telling me the definition of a word.

Are you on drugs or something?!! I totally answered your question. If you aren't socialist, you're capitalist. The terms are a reference to where the majority of the capital is controlled, politicians or its earner. There is no other place for it to be. Just like if you're not feeling good, you're feeling bad. Not anti-good.

YES, THAT MEANS GEORGE BUSH AND NEO-CONS ARE SOCIALISTS, EVEN MORESO THAN CLINTON WHO ENJOYED POPULARITY UNDER THE FED-INDUCED TECH BUBBLE OF THE 90S. Instead of having that bubble burst on Bush's first term and making him a one-term president, he delayed a severe recession by having Greenspan artificially lower interest rates to 1% for an entire year. The inflationary effects of that filtered into real estate. Amazing revelation, here for you?

then you only have one problem left, and for me it's a big one: The Arts. I cannot figure out a way that art can be compatible with capitalism. It doesn't work like that.

It's the complete opposite, art is hurt by socialism. What funds advanced types of art and entertainment like video games and movies is the personal tastes of a private earner who has in his possession excess capital after buying things to merely survive. Socialism could try to provide for that, but tastes vary far too much for a central office to know the millions of places that the capital would have flowed to if it had been spent by its earner. Or even how much is appropriate to distribute to each person. Invariably, there will be people who don't care much about art and just want a bigger family. Do you then take from one person's art fund to finance the cost of those kids? That will gut the art fund very quickly. As will the corruption inherent in having capital controlled by someone who didn't earn it. And when your government is involved in banning computers and censoring speech, good luck with damn near anything.

Here is my attempt to derive a political system from "the right to life", using only market concepts and voluntary cooperation.

This is our current system in action in 2007:
........................................(billions).............(%)
national defense...............$552.................19%
education.........................$91...................3%
health...............................$266.................9%
medicare...........................$375................13%
income security.................$365................13%
social security....................$596................21%
veterans benefits...............$72..................3%
environment......................$31..................1%
transportation....................$72..................3%
community development....$54.................2%
international affairs.............$29.................1%
general science...................$23.................1%
agriculture......................... $25.................1%
admistration of justice.........$41................ 1%
general government............$18.................1%
interest...............................$226...............8%
total....................................$2836

If we use pre-occupation levels, we spent $275 billion on national defense. This places the cost of a government functioning only to ensure "the right to life" at 275+41+18=$334 billion. If we are generous and keep in education, transportation, and the environment that adds an extra 91+31+72=$194.

The national income as reported for 2007 was about $14,000 billion dollars. To finance a government whose annual budget is $334 billion, 300 million people would have to donate $1,113 each or 2.38%, on average. If you take the median income in 2007 of $50,233, this represents a 2.22% all-inclusive tax rate. For the poorest, who make only $12,000 a year, this represents 9.26%―higher, but roughly half the level of taxation they currently endure.

In 2007, the census reported the bottom 20% of Americans made $19,178 or less, while the top 20% made over $100,000, and the top 6.78% held over 1/3 of the national income―or around $4.66 trillion dollars. If only the top 80% paid taxes, their fair share would rise to $1,390―and the poorest 40 million Americans would get a free ride. If only the top 6.78% paid taxes, they would only have to donate 6.9%--an amount almost equal to our current sales tax alone. Despite shouldering the entire financial burden of the country, the income of the top 6.78% would rise by over 40% current levels.

However, if the only moral system of taxation in a free society is a voluntary one, why would anyone be motivated to pay taxes? The answer comes from property rights. Property is secured by the police, national defense, fire department, and the legal system. Police can be dispatched to prevent or stop acts of vandalism, burglaries, riots, and violent crime. The army provides a defense against invasion from foreign entities, and the resulting occupation and looting. The fire department suppresses destructive property fires triggered by arson, carelessness, or natural causes. And the legal system prosecutes violations of individual/property rights.

The successful entrepreneur, who has amassed great wealth, has a lot to lose from the violations of these rights. A working family struggling to make ends meet, however, has much less capital to lose. Thus, the wealthiest individuals will have a large incentive to voluntarily subject themselves to taxation―for the selfish reason of securing their wealth. The lower and middle class will be motivated as well, but to a lesser extent―one that, as for the wealthy individual, is proportional to the sum of their assets. To some degree, the wealthy will rely on private security in safeguarding their assets, but even the wealthiest individual cannot finance a private security force capable of repelling a foreign invasion by a modern army, nor could they maintain their high standard of living while surrounded in anarchy―where the lack of a public police force and legal consequence would present little resistance for those willing to violate the rights of others. In this way, the wealthy minority will voluntarily fund the basic roles of government, while the majority benefit at little to no cost.

So what about social services such as education, transportation, healthcare, and unemployment insurance? There are many ways to achieve these on the free market―either through private businesses or non-profit organizations. The implementation and management of a privately funded business and a publicly funded state program are really quite similar―both are funded by large groups of people (shareholders or voters), and both have concentrated leadership which is democratically elected (CE0/board or president/congress). The difference arises when business is bad: a private organization which does not provide a service in demand, or provides it inefficiently will go bankrupt, while a state program which does the same will likely result in increased taxation or national debt. If the government is forbidden from forced taxation―all differences between the two vanish. Thus, it is possible to have a privately funded non-profit organization which provides education, transportation, healthcare, or unemployment insurance―regardless of whether its leadership is elected through the state. And by making financial information public, the organization can ensure a healthy supply of donations―if the service it provides is in demand.

Let's apply the same analysis to a public service: say, education. Most Americans believe in providing an education for all those who desire to pursue it. However, the top tier of society is already donating 6.9% of their income in taxes, and may not find any additional benefit in educating the poor―after all they have the police and army which is what they really need to protect their property. The lower 80% of America is different―they are not yet wealthy, so they can see the benefit of a public education which can be used to generate wealth-- the bottom 20% even more so―although they cannot afford to donate much. We are thus left with 60% of America, or the 180 million Americans that make up the middle class. If every member of the class donates a mere $1000 a year towards education, or 2% of their median $50,233 income (of which they are paying no taxes so far), together they could pool about $180 billion―twice the $91 billion spent on education in our current system.

Now enter the teachers. Teachers can't teach without students, so in the selfish interest of providing themselves with an income, a group of teachers may form a non-profit organization called the United Teachers For America, whose goal is to provide a quality education free of charge. Their annual budget is $91 billion―but we have already shown that by donating a mere 2% of their income, middle-class America alone could provide up to $180 billion. Since they are operating on donations, which may vary from year to year, the UTFA may decide to maintain a surplus―in order to sustain operations for several years with below-average donations. This same strategy has been successfully adopted by private companies who keep cash on hand to protect against a downturn. Then, by making their financial information public, the leadership can solicit extra donations during below-average years--analogous to the spike in donations local blood drives receive after a crisis. The UTFA, competing in the free market, receive income (in this case donations) based on the quality of service they provide. This creates a strong motivation to provide efficient, high quality education―not only to sustain operations, but also to provide competitive wages for the teachers they employ. Likewise, there will also be a thriving private sector, which through competitive action in the free market, will offer a multitude of degree and tuition options--at a much lower cost than exists today. Similar arguments can be made for any number of public services such as transportation, healthcare, unemployment insurance, etc.

The departure from forced taxation alone will impact the lowest-income families in the following ways: income will increase 15-23%, prices of goods and services will decrease up to 8%, housing costs will decrease by up to 5%, heating/fuel costs will decrease by up to 12.5%--resulting in an effective increase in wages by ~20-35%. When one compounds the action of a free market, where income has also increased by up to 40%, and harmful regulations are lifted―the effective increase in wages could be as high as 60-75%. Low-income families will be free of taxation, have increased wages, and not only have access to cheaper goods and services, but access to goods and services that were previously unavailable.

Obviously, he wouldn't have done it if a human were in danger, This is not driving 100mph through traffic, endangering others. I don't think anyone would begrudge this.

It's sad they arrived too late for two other kittehs. A ferret, some frogs and a couple dogs were also saved.

Seems it was arson. Two people who lived there have been arrested.

forcing you to pay for fire, national defense, police, or legal systems (despite being legitimate roles of government) is coercion and thus, unacceptable. i never once said anything about forcing you to pay taxes. taxes collected by force are not a part of a free society. there are many ways to set up a voluntary tax system-you just have to be more creative.

and when speaking about a voluntary tax system--if the only role of government is protection of individual rights (i.e. property rights) who has the most property to lose? the millionares, billionares, and CEOs will have a very large interest (an amount of interest equal to their bank accounts most likely) to secure their assests by providing money for national defense, a police force, firefighters, and a legal system in which to seek compensation for prosecute theft and vandalism. ironically, it is this system, where the lower and middle class will likely pay almost nothing--as what property do they have to lose to theft, be it by criminals or invasion? However, the upper 5% will be extremely motivated to pay their share.

Our current system--bloated beyond belief--requires $2-3 trillion a year to sustain. Now imagine if we are slashing all those programs, and only police, fire, national defense, and a legal system remain (and we aren't invading and occupying soverign countries)--how much would that cost? Lets assume we could get by on say, 25% of our current budget (a pretty generous figure I think)--that would be $625 billion. If everyone paid an equal amount that would be roughly $2,000 per person. How much does even the lowest income family currently pay in taxes?

Now recall the poorest people would not be very motivated to donate, while the billionares will be. If only the top 10% paid taxes, that would be 30 million people. The amount per person would then jump to $20,000 per person--yet 270 million americans would be getting a free ride. If that top 10% all are all millionaires, this would represent a mere 2% or less of their income. Not a bad overhead for the protection of your assets, huh? Thus, regardless of income, everyone's wages raise between 21-43%. People don't have all the "free" programs they did before--but with a free market and 39 cents for every dollar freed up on corporate profits, the cost of living plummets--and suddenly people can afford education, healthcare, groceries, and housing. But most importantly--nobody is forced to do a thing.

However--thats not the end of it--that is only an analysis of the strictly voluntary donations. There are other ways to tax goods and services such that they are completely voluntary and without penalty--ayn rand provides one such example which, for the sake of brevity, I will not reproduce here.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
So forcing me to pay for an arson spree is acceptable coercion?

In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
thats not true, because fires can be the result of arson. thus, the fire force serves to product against the destruction of personal property--similar to how the police responds to vandalism.

Looks a lot like a Saturday night in my old Detroit neighborhood, minus the gunfire and arson.

^dystopianfuturetoday
" Huge contradiction in your argument: Forcing me topay the fire department to put out your fires is forced coercion. Let the motherfucker burn."

Arson is a violation of property rights just like vandalism. Thus, similar to police, firefighters act to ensure property rights, and by extension, individual rights.

thats not true, because fires can be the result of arson. thus, the fire force serves to product against the destruction of personal property--similar to how the police responds to vandalism.


In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Reality. History. Consensus. Logic. Common Sense. Evidence. Reason. Any of these should do.

Huge contradiction in your argument: Forcing me to pay the fire department to put out your fires is forced coercion. Let the motherfucker burn.

Your logic needs retooling.

In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
^dystopianfuturetoday
1. Educating students (disagree)
2. fighting fires (agree)
3. policing neighborhoods (agree)
4. a functioning highway system (disagree)
5. safe food and drugs, clean water (disagree)
6. a just court system (agree)
7. preserving our national parks (agree)
8. the registration of automobiles (disagree)

My answers are a result of the evaluation of this single axiom:
the most fundamental human right is the freedom to think and act, free of coercion--physical or otherwise.

What are your answers the result of?

>> ^NetRunner:
^ I actually agree with you on most of the actions you're recommending, if not your total rejection of "socialism" (which you seem to define as "anything that restricts businesses from doing as they please")

No, I define socialism for what it is: any government which controls over 50% of its capital. We are extremely close to that and it's a major problem. Do you understand that in a libertarian society, it is illegal to infringe on a person's rights, whether you're a company or an individual? How do you interpret my post as wanting to let companies do ANYTHING they please? Gimme a break, companies in a truly free market are forced to follow the law and compete in a fair environment or be taken to court. The enablements of inflation, subsidies, and specialized tax breaks erode that fairness. Without that, companies would have only one legitimate way to make money: to convince you to buy their product over their competitor's. And to pay its workers by outbidding its competition and getting you to agree on a price. Oh, the horror! And not even the highest paid lawyers in the world can win cases on outright false advertising and malpractice.


>> ^NetRunner:
^There is always an implied (and in your case directly stated) belief that anyone who believes in regulating markets doesn't understand economics, and I heartily disagree. If that were the case, all PhD economists would all be endorsing the Libertarian party...and yet, they've got a political spectrum that leans left of the average populace.

"Economics" is too vague. There are many different branches, the dominant philosophy changes with time. Currently, it is neo-Keynesian, but that will change after its collapse. It matters not that 90% of current economics doctorates are in this manner of thinking. The Austrians were already proven right from the FIRST great depression, do we really need another one to figure out that the Federal Reserve is the equivalent of the benevolent dictator argument?

>> ^NetRunner:
^My favorite "market regulation" is a ban on slavery. If you follow the Libertarian/market fundamentalist argument -- slavery should be legal. People should be able to sell themselves into permanent servitude, and then be resold by their owners.

I don't think that's going to fly, because no one would know if you were voluntarily doing it or somehow coerced or tricked into doing it. But fundamentally, you're right, people own their own bodies, and that means they are free to inflict themselves with drugs, kill themselves, whatever. If our technology comes to a point where the government is capable of manipulating your body into not doing something with some kind of field under the pretense of protecting you, will you allow them this ability? Or are you smart enough to realize that the power will be abused and incur ultimate costs far greater than the benefits?

>> ^NetRunner
Fraud should also be legalized -- if I'm smart enough to dupe a person or corporation out of their money, I should get to keep it.

Wrong, misrepresentation or not honoring a verbal or contractual agreement is the equivalent of theft. The transaction is not complete until both parties receive what they contractually agreed upon. If some person in Negeria tells you you won a prize and you pay them the collection fee, and they give you no prize, that is an unlawful appropriation of property and an infringement of rights. Not a freely acceptable activity under a libertarian free market, because the federal government has legitimate duties to protect people from infringements of rights and offer a means of recourse through the courts. See, this is the problem. You don't even understand the few government powers that ARE justified, you're so wrapped up in its "regulatory" extensions!

>> ^NetRunner:
^Violent intimidation should also be legalized. If my competitors think they can open a store in my neighborhood, they better be able to protect it from my guys burning it down.

Ummm, arson is destruction property you don't own. Rights derive from property, if you don't own it, you can't take or break it with impunity in a system that protects from such infringements.

>> ^NetRunnerAfter all, only a socialist would think we should interfere with the free market.

The market is millions of people making mutually agreeable transactions. The government is not the market, they're just suppose to protect people's property and settle disputes on a national and domestic level. And it isn't black and white anyway. For example, I disagree with fellow libertarians in that I want to keep the FDA for information, labelling, and enforcement of what constitutes terms like "organic" and "free range," but remove their ability to ban products. That power is currently used for collusive anti-competitive reasons. Go on wikipedia and look up Stevia for one example, the artificial sweetener lobby bribed officials to block its use in products because it was a natural, no-patent substitute to crap like "Aspartame" which would have cost them billions.

>> ^NetRunnerThose sound silly, but they're along your line of thinking. When us "socialists" talk about regulating the mortgage market, most of us are thinking that the law should require lending companies be upfront about the risks and costs involved in loans to the customer. It shouldn't be "caveat emptor" at all times, and buying a home shouldn't mean you need to hire a lawyer, just to hear the truth about what your obligations will be.


I'm not entirely sure what such a law would say, there are risks everywhere to everything. You can't slam your finger in the car door and sue the automaker for not explaining the risks of doors to you. Likewise, if you are speculating on home appreciation and taking a non-standard loan, I have ZERO sympathy for you if you didn't read the paperwork and ask questions beforehand. Many of these people lied about their incomes to get mortgages on homes they knew they couldn't afford, but thought would pay for themselves.

Ultimately, though, their only loss will be their credit and the home they couldn't afford because they can walk away and leave their bank or lender with the unpaid loan and depreciating house. That's what the government is trying to bail out with honest taxpayer money. Instead of letting the chips fall where they may, we're trying to delay a necessary recession AGAIN with inflation. Prices want to come down from these artificial levels, and have those jobs reallocate to manufacturing exports because exports are the only thing a the weak dollar is good for. Yes, that's a painful process, just like a junkie from a high, but you have to come down from it, not shoot up with more heroin until you kill the dollar.See, that's the market's automatic way of healing itself. BUT IT ISN'T BEING ALLOWED TO HAPPEN. We're getting more intervention, full of moral hazard from socialized losses and a systemic destruction of natural deterrents (why would I keep saving prudently if I lose and a speculator wins? Why would banks stop being taking risks if the government will always spare them true consequence?).

But tell me, how many politicians are going to win an election saying that pain is necessary? Zero. They're going to play to people's ignorance and gravy train optimism and propose an easy government solution. And it will be a replay of the FDR administration with Obama, but pretty effing bad under McCain as well.

And I just want to say thank god that you didn't know any myths about gold, because I'm tired of writing today, but I see jwray made up for that. *sigh*

That awesome building he's dancing in front of in Seoul, South Korea (2:49), is Namdaemun, Korea's number one cultural treasure. Sadly, it isn't there anymore. It mostly burned down this past February after an arson attack.

This is the best I could find - it's a video of a tv screen and doesn't include the "rape, murder, arson, and rape" guy.

In reply to this comment by swampgirl:
Crap, I can't find a replacement. There are similar clips but not the one I used. Mine started at the beginning of the registration and ended seeing the KKK guys.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
haha - I love that line. I use it whenever I can. I'll probably never have another opportunity like I did on my first day working at a PET center. We were given radiation badges to measure cumulative radiation dosages, so I turned to my friend that hired me and said, "Badges? We don't need no stinking badges!". The whole room lost it.

[edit] I just went to view and vote for your vid, but it's dead.

In reply to this comment by swampgirl:
Hilarious. I think I posted the first half of that scene. When the bad guys were registering and saying "we don't need no stinking badges"


In reply to this comment by jonny:
Thanks! Funny, I thought you'd like the this one more.

In reply to this comment by swampgirl:
*promote

I'll never think it's appropriate to reveal someone's personal information on a HUGE internet community like this even if the person is trying to be destructive, especially someone young (people in the mob get the wrong idea and go WAY overboard sometimes). If the admins--or they and some trusted cohorts--can identify the culprit and deal with it privately, that'd be ideal. Going to authorities or an ISP would be next. Calling for or even unintentionally implying a call for a 4chan-esque raid can be an extraordinarily bad and dangerous idea. Big mobs like this can get angry and forget that there's a person at the end of the data stream, even he's a complete ass. You might say "I know this community" but ya don't know everyone, not a chance. All we need is some nut-case saying, "hey I know that address!" then it's conspiracy to commit arson, weee. Mink lashed out on the other post about something about "what if he killed himself because of the attacks on him?" It might be an extremely SLIM chance, but ironically it's no joke, since it has happened on internet communities before. ...And hitting a friend or family member of the accused is so far out of line, it lands in North Korea somewhere. In highschool, we had some crazy kid walk into one of our dances and shoot a teacher in the face. He walked around shooting 'til he eventually panicked, ran, and got caught... by an armed civilian no less. He's in jail (30-60 yrs); no one attacked his siblings for it.

Anyway, that said, Dag has said his policy has been set to what he says above, which sounds good and safe for both sides.

I come from an upper-middle-class liberal suburban place pronounced Missour-EE within a red state called Missour-UH in the United States of Jesus. My high school had a very high percentage of children of professors at Washington University, and if you added up all the jews, blacks, asians, and mixed people, that was probably over 50%. My mother hails from UCC, which is probably the second most welcoming and nondogmatic of sect of Christianity behind Unitarian Universalism (Barack Obama is in UCC). My father was a woowoo evangelical. Some of my recollections on the subject of religion during childhood are:

1. In third grade, some kid started going around asking everybody, with a dichotomous intonation, "Are you Catholic, or Christian"? I suspect he was an evangelical. I don't recall giving any reply, but even at the time I had doubts due to the lack of any fulfillment of prayer. I had grown to distrust all adults and authority figures as a reasonable extension of my discovery, as a five or six year old, of Santa Claus, the first thanksgiving, Pocahontas, and many other lies. I had also grown to suspect something was terribly rotten in our society due to the cruelty of many homophobic bullies who called me names that weren't even true and the teachers who didn't care. Because of my alienation, I was not inclined to presuppose that the majority opinion was more likely to be correct.

2. Around this time, my (divorced remarried noncustodial) father also took me to see a faith-healer. I don't recall what he was trying to cure me of. He attended some crackpot semirural megachurch, and his business was "no money down" real-estate, another religion.

3. Within two years afterward my father was involuntarily committed to a mental institution for schizophrenia because he believed he could communicate directly with the spirits of Joan of Arc, Jesus, and other saints, and they told him to fight demons by committing arson. He later said the charges were trumped-up and unsuccessfully tried to get out with a religious freedom argument.

4. Teachers from sixth through twelfth grade stressed the importance of critical thinking and incorporated it into the curriculum.

5. In seventh grade, I recall being asked of my religious affiliation, and replying that I was sitting on the fence between agnosticism and atheism. There was no retribution or suprise or stigma. I was already an outcast and had nothing socially to lose, anyway. About a year prior I first acquired persistent unsupervised access to the internet, which I have had ever since. In the following two years I did quite a lot of research online and debating in online bulletin boards. This drew me closer to atheism by gaining a greater understanding of physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, etc. In other words, a greater understanding of how the world came to be the way it is. However, I would still call myself a teapot-agnostic.

6. In high school, I found a clique of atheists and agnostics. Shortly after 9/11, when the Missouri legislature enacted a bill that compelled schools to recite the pledge of allegiance at least once a week, some of my classmates and I openly expressed our disapproval on the grounds of separation of church and state. No gasps were heard. This was long before the Newdow case. When the Bible As/In Literature was taught in English class, several of my classmates and I expressed our disapproval again on the same grounds. In classroom discussions on that book, I recall many viewpoints being expressed with no great gasps of shock. I, the nerd, said openly that I thought the bible was a collection of fairy tales, poems, and forgeries, while the big football jock next to me expressed a predilection for biblical literalism in not so many words. I recall a very hot semi-orthodox Jewish girl who told me she would only date Jews.

I agreed with, or even said openly online, much of what is contained in the God Delusion, before the book was published. I suspect some others have had similar experiences. Not every consensus is a flock.


The ID movement, and the fact that every single suicide hijacker/bomber is faith-based, and the loosening of taboos by (e.g.) the Daily Show, have probably been three of the most important factors that led to the books of Dawkins and Hitchens. In Dawkins' case, the ID movement alone may have been the most important factor because of his biological profession. Hitchens tends to write books extremely quickly (averaging a book a year for the past 24 years), and it's very plausible that he began writing his after, and because of, the success of The God Delusion.

Most nonatheist people's comments on the Sift about Dawkins accuse him of being too shrill. Accusing one's opponent of too much enthusiasm (stridency, shrillness) is irrelevant to the subject matter of the debate. I personally find nothing unpleasant about Dawkins' manner of speech except his affinity for hooptedoodle. His grotesque description of the god of the old testament is spot-on. A book only appears strident in relation to one's perception of orthodoxy, and neither the orthodoxy nor one's perception of orthodoxy are necessarily correct. Rather, debate the substance of the issue. Neither Dawkins nor any of his followers is advocating curtailing the religious freedom of believers, so his opponents have nothing to fear but the holes in their theories.

Thanks again everyone. I have a lot of fun doing this, and I'll continue to do it until it's no longer fun. I hope that day never comes, but if it does I can always fall back on my old hobby: arson. (Sifting is much better; the nightmares are less intense.)

I'm not sure. I just know that's what was available since a lot of places were not open - given flooding, wind damage and looting. Oh, and some arson went on too - two malls.

I have absolutely no sympathy for Ellen in this case. I am a crazy bat-shit animal person (like oxdottir) but I've also worked with rescue, and agency rules are in place for a reason, for the best interests of the animal involved.

A) If you follow the timelines, Ellen and her partner had the dog for less than a month before giving up on it. I don't care if they spent $50,000 in "therapy," that's too short of a time for a puppy to get acclimated to a new environment. And... it's a PUPPY. Puppies are rambunxious. Learn to deal if you want to adopt one.

B) She signed a contract that if she was unable to keep the puppy, she would return it to the agency. This is pretty routine, and lots of rescue groups have similar clauses in their contracts. They want to make sure that people aren't adopting their animals only to rehome them with families that wouldn't have otherwise passed the application process - like her hairdresser's family. The agency she adopted from has a policy that they won't adopt to families with kids under 14. The hairdressers kids are 11 and 12, so they wouldn't have passed the application process. She violated the terms of the contract, and the dog was confiscated per the contract terms.

Later on, the rescue group started getting death threats and arson threats by Ellen's fans. Them're all crazies.

And now, please, someone shoot me in the head for knowing so much about this situation.