Morning Reads–Wherein We Hope for Global Warming

Just for the record: it is 37 in Omsk, Siberia. It is below freezing in Atlanta.

DJ Shadow — “What Does Your Soul Look Like (Part 4)”


  1. South Fulton Guy says:

    Fact Check: Shirley Franklin did not say as the headline says “I wish I could have been more socialist during my time as mayor.”

    She said “Atlanta has fallen behind on social mobility and why she wishes she’d paid more attention to the problem when she held office.”

    Advocating more more social services is not the same as advocating for socialism. The words socialist or socialism do not appear in the article.

    • Ed says:

      “The words socialist or socialism do not appear in the article.”

      Well I’ll be.

      Look, I’m someone who literally hates (as in literally literally and hates, not just “hates”) when people go: well that’s vaguely leftist so it must be socialist. However, a liberal politician who wants to “do more” to tackle income inequality wish to do so not through the free market but through greater governmental wage controls or increased taxation. Is it purely socialist…well, no. But then again I’m generally pretty over the top with my MRs.

  2. South Fulton Guy says:

    Yes you are pretty over the top with your MRs.

    Hizzoner Kasim Reed? REALLY Ed? From Wikipedia “Hizzoner is a corruption of the title “His Honor”, used in particular to refer irreverently to the mayor of larger cities in the United States, especially the Mayor of New York City”

    What’s up with criticism of Atlanta Mayors today who happen to be Black? I don’t see the same tenor and degree criticism of less than perfect leaders of other Metro Atlanta counties and cities. I don’t hear Hizzoner Rusty Paul, Hizzoner Jere Wood, Hizzoner Joe Lockwood, or Hizzoner Mike Bodker. What could be different about them?

    Where is the headline on Elaine Boyer for example?

  3. saltycracker says:

    Shirley Franklin’s (and leaders like her) business model of increasing public payrolls in bodies and dollars will primarily improve the lot of public employees. A greater service would be for government to focus on removing barriers, increasing competition and encouraging citizens to be self reliant and productive. The city has failed at its most basic duty, provide a sound education for the children.

    • Ed says:

      In fairness to Shirley, I’m pretty sure being duped by an allegedly criminal enterprise from a separately-elected body putting forth shoddy numbers can’t really be held against the City of Atlanta.

      • saltycracker says:

        Absent the scandals,the bureaucracy of employees is still a problem and they all feed on each other to “compete” to the max self serving level.

        • saltycracker says:

          P,S. At least a charity that spends 80% of its intake on itself and 20% on their mission got its money “voluntarily”. (Stats for demo purposes only)

  4. penguin says:

    Legislature laughs at the Times because their editorial board failed to grasp how stupid the Legislature (and Governor) think GA voters are? “Well, now that they’ve passed a law that allows me to carry guns into bars a) my 2nd amendment rights are more secure; b) the one thing missing in my life is fixed…now I will vote for them”

    • Michael Silver says:

      Since 2010, we could carry in bars and DRINK too. Under current law, we had to ask permission to carry into the bar. Under HB60, that requirement will be removed.

      I’ve carried in bars and always wondered what happens if the person saying its ok when I asked, denies saying ok later on. I’m glad that pit-fall is going away.

      Its important to know that bars and churches can still ban guns on their property with the Criminal Trespass law. Opt-In was simply a way to pile on extra charges and penalties on licensees who violate the sanctity of gun free zones.

      • penguin says:

        Actually, HB 60 only gives “places of worship” the “Opt in” option, whereas bars are just removed from the list of prohibited places. Thus, any bar owner that would prefer the bar continue to be a “gun free zone” would have the onus of enforcing such gun prohibition, or could pursue the criminal trespass option once the gun is brandished. Also, the problem you raise would seemingly still exist and go addressed (particularly for places of worship), since how one opts in and gives permission isn’t addressed by the legislation.

        But hey, maybe such things are better left figured out once the courts get involved (and hopefully before anyone gets shot).

        The point though is that this bill has little to do with gun rights or property rights, but is just intended to a symbolic measure to assure constituents those in power are pro Am. 2, while accomplishing very little.

Comments are closed.