Want to start a Facebook thread of doom?

By skepticlawyer

… Just write the following as your status update:

[skepticlawyer] is getting rather sick of the politics of envy – served with a toxic topping of fat hate – being flung at Gina Rinehart. Here’s a tip: if a woman has a great deal more money and talent than you, and also refuses to play the beauty game, how about rocking up to the staff canteen and grabbing a nice steaming hot cup of STFU to go?

What followed was extraordinary both for its speed (50 comments in about 2 hours; there are more comments there now) and for the deep divisions it exposed among my friends.

By way of background, I should explain that I have a relatively large number of facebook friends, and that — unusually — I have met most of them ‘in real life’, or know them through other channels (mainly blogging and Skeptics, but not always). This has come about entirely accidentally. I am not someone who uses Facebook to ‘network’ – people who do use it to network often have thousands of friends, and I’m sure if I did that I would lose track of them all. It likely has its origins in my study at three universities (Queensland, Oxford, Edinburgh), and two very different careers (publishing, law). So I know writers and academics and literary award judges and media types (reporters and opinion columnists, print and television, in both Australia and the UK), and I also know lawyers, scientists and economists. It is a sure bet that most of my friends will disagree with me on at least one major issue, and often on many more. They will also disagree with each other on many things.

People from all my friendship groups, all three universities and multiple countries piled in, with many more observing and ‘liking’ certain comments. Sometimes (because Rinehart is Australian) I had to provide context for British and American friends. The disagreements were courteous (I am not rude and I don’t have rude friends, so I must be doing something right), but very heated. They were also very revealing.

I don’t wish to go quoting people’s rapidly-written thoughts on facebook: I don’t think that’s fair… also, I only know one person who can be splendidly witty on Facebook at all times. While she contributed to the thread in question, to draw on her comments would then require me to draw on other people’s comments, which leads back to the unfairness issue, and so on. So I won’t do that.

Instead, I’d like to make a few observations:

1. CP Snow’s ‘The Two Cultures‘ does not just apply to a division between the arts and sciences. It also applies to a division between the arts and what I’m rather loosely going to call ‘business’. The division, like the arts/science one Snow identified, is partly one of knowledge. It is mainly, however, one of politics. This isn’t to say that there aren’t right leaning writers or left-leaning economists, but if one wanted to do a statistical analysis of my friends and their views, then the Snow-like division would hold.

2. Many people ascribe moral weight to luck in ways I find quite perplexing. Part of the thread was consumed with debating whether Rinehart is very talented, or merely lucky, and involved one person (I’m sure unintentionally) arguing that you have to mix your labour with something you sell in order for you to have earned your income from it legitimately. I am old enough and cynical enough to spot the labour theory of value in all its ugly guises, so that invited some foot-stamping from me. For what it’s worth, my view is that she was lucky, but also talented, and that the former has no moral weight. Why should it? Luck is luck, in both directions. You may as well ascribe moral weight to being hit by a flying outhouse.

3. People from the arts side of the divide (but who are not journalists or columnists) have extremely naive views of what newspapers do and how they operate. There was no real sense that a newspaper is a business, and must turn a profit, if it is to survive. There was a great deal of moral purity on display in the dislike for Rinehart’s interest in Fairfax, but this was decoupled from an understanding that without investment the company may die.

4. And the biggie: our (by which I mean people in Western developed countries, because the same thing happens in the UK, US, Europe and Japan) complex attitude to fat people. After publishing (very naively) a post of Jacques’s on diet (no, skepticlawyer is not going to turn into a diet blog, I assure you), a whole world of extraordinary disagreement was revealed to me. Until Jacques’s guest post, I have to admit (apologetically) that I had no idea this issue would generate so much heat (and so little light, I might add). I put Jacques’s piece up because I thought it would be a nice ‘filler’ post in between all the law and economics we write about (sorry Jacques, but that’s the truth). Oy vey, was I ever wrong.

The issue is so fraught that for some people, I’m being rude just by using the word ‘fat’, while for others, the fact that Rinehart is fat makes her especially morally blameworthy, as though flesh carries some sort of moral marker. Well, by that logic, if we are going to ascribe to flesh the moral marker of ‘gluttony’, then the really awful attitudes on display towards her wealth have to carry the moral marker of ‘envy’. Now I am neither fat nor envious, but given a choice between the two, I would take fat over envy any day. Envy must be horrible, all-consuming, destructive. It must be like being eaten from inside.

There was a fairly determined attempt by certain parties to the thread to argue that ‘fat-hate’ is directed at men with equal venom as it is towards women, but I don’t buy that. What I have noticed (since I’ve developed an interest in this topic) is that characteristics that were once negative only for women are now in the process of becoming negative for men, although they have not yet reached the same level of intensity. Instead of equality of the sexes liberating both men and women from awful expectations, it seems that men will now have inflicted upon them everything that women once endured, and that nothing for women will change at all. This is sad, but I don’t see the culture shifting any time soon.

5. Finally, I am going to have to admit my erstwhile view that Facebook is no good for political debate is wrong. With some care and a genuinely diverse group of friends, it is possible to have lively and thoughtful discussion, pretty much in real time. I was impressed by those people who pointed out that Rinehart’s personal life is not to be envied, and who showed — in a very brief space and very few words — real human understanding and empathy. I had not expected that of Facebook, which hitherto seemed to reduce empathy and understanding to a surfeit of cute kitten pictures.

40 Comments

  1. JC
    Posted July 3, 2012 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

    Le

    I have a daughter that can run three different arguments at a time over completely different issues at dinner. I’m actually enthralled at her ability. It’s like multi tasking.

  2. Posted July 3, 2012 at 5:25 pm | Permalink

    Lorenzo – on Fairfax going out of business by doing nothing –
    Actually, last I looked, The Age alone (weekdays 190k) outsold The Oz nationally (140k). All newspapers have problems with revenue in the internet age, so the changes at fairfax to cut down on paper, moving mainly online for cars and the like, are necessary. That fairfax can run broadsheets content (and reasonable quality radio) and not go out of business in a moment, while Murdoch’s Oz is run at loss, says something – if only about the majority of people who read and want more than sport to be reported accurately. If fairfax could cop the initial hit, an extra paper, something aimed at the Hun readership, but a bit less shockjock and maybe even a page or two of real news (with no long words), would be an interesting move – as would The Hun’s reaction, probably having to go to a mix of more sport and a daily dose of “Ralph” and “Who Weekly”.

    But, Fairfax dominates the market for people used to words of more than 3 syllables apart from sportstar names, so if a paper for the literate and numerate can’t survive in this country (remember, The Oz can’t stand unsupported), then we are certainly destined to be the poor white trash of Asia.

    Dare I ask on TV, if the thinking market is there and can’t stand Auntie, why the “void” hasn’t been filled by an upmarket TV station that presents what Auntie-and-Fairfax bashers think is balanced? If there is an imbalance at Auntie and Fairfax, the free market would have provided an alternative for the thinking classes.

  3. Mel
    Posted July 3, 2012 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

    DB:

    “Actually, last I looked, The Age alone (weekdays 190k) outsold The Oz nationally (140k).”

    Since Murdoch isn’t an Australia citizen, I would confiscate all News Limited assets in Australia and give them to progressive groups, including the Save the Purple Striped Legless Lizard Fund.

    As regards Gina, I’d have her carcass (the blubbering gimp is bound to have a heart attack soon) turned into bite sized chunks and exported to Japan as “authentic Australian raised in the outback” whale sushi.

    Every problem has a nice Soylent Green solution.

  4. JC
    Posted July 3, 2012 at 5:43 pm | Permalink

    Dare I ask on TV, if the thinking market is there and can’t stand Auntie, why the “void” hasn’t been filled by an upmarket TV station that presents what Auntie-and-Fairfax bashers think is balanced? If there is an imbalance at Auntie and Fairfax, the free market would have provided an alternative for the thinking classes.

    You mean like partisan stuff?

    Two problems.

    1. Benito Conroy bribed the free to air stations with $250 million so they are now his bitches.

    2. The ABC has crushed the potential for competition.

    The thing that amazes me about Leftfax is how the idiots there don’t realize that their ABC is essentially putting them out of a job with their website and digital news. Honestly they are so stupid it’s amazing they can actually get to the office each day without a guide. Leftfax’s biggest competitor is the ABC for leftwing eyeballs.

    And by the way your 190, 000 number is wrong from what I last saw. Their best day is Tuesday for some reason and they are down to a miserable 132,000 and around 30,000 of that is given away. This proves that peddling a Greens love media line does nothing for circulation. They’re history and no number of Earth Hour’s is going to change the trajectory leading straight over the cliff into the abyss.

  5. Posted July 3, 2012 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

    Right, clearly some people think this kind of crap is funny. It’s not. JC used to joke about wearing his tux at Club Troppo, and I’d ask him also to don it here. Mel, you’ve by and large kept away from argumentative silliness since commenting here. Don’t start it up again. For some reason our viewing and reading stats have gone silly in the last week, and a lot of new commenters have been turning up. Don’t scare them off. This blog is about a genuine range of views, which means you’re going to disagree with each other. That’s always been the case. Now grow up and accept that fact, or go elsewhere.

    /Admin rant off.

  6. JC
    Posted July 3, 2012 at 5:48 pm | Permalink

    No death threats there Mel, right? (as you call them)

  7. Posted July 3, 2012 at 6:17 pm | Permalink

    Oh [email protected],

    Point about deep pockets doesn’t depend on taking sides. It’s about the advantage that the deeper-pocketed side has regardless of the merits. This includes the advantage to outlast the other side or wear it down to capitulation or settlement and to incur massive costs which operate in terrorem. Apart from opponents who have commensurately deep pockets (or at least deep enough that they can bear these risks and keep up the fight) only the legally aided or the fearless unrepresented natural person within the jurisdiction with nothing to lose can stand up to that on an even basis.

    btw, as far as I understand it’s not GR’s money which is paying for the Fairfax shares – it is Hancock Prospecting Pty Limited’s money – that is, money controlled by Gina as >75% shareholder of HPPL.

    The basis for GR’s claim that her kids might go bankrupt if the trust which owned <25% of shares in that company vested is because as controller of HPPL's board she might not be minded to permit HPPL to pay them sufficient dividends to pay the capital gains tax on the value of the shares which she said would arise on the vesting.

  8. JC
    Posted July 3, 2012 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

    Sl:

    Fine, the tux was in the basement for a coupla years so I took it out. It’s sorta shrunk though. However the patent leather black shoes look really good.

  9. JC
    Posted July 3, 2012 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

    Marcellous… The power thing is bullshit in my mind. I took out a Chairman of a smallish public company with 250 bucks and a will to ruin the prick. I bought the share register. I called journalists and wrote to them explaining the egregious thing the firm was doing. I wrote a letter to the other decent sized shareholders explaining why I was pissed and why they should follow me. The journos wrote the story, in fact one journo asked me to wrote it for him and he’d publish it after checking the details. I crushed the dishonest bastard and hope I’ve ruined his career.. I don’t believe this power imbalance thing. Not everything can be given to you on a silver platter, so you have to help yourself in life.

    Wearing out the other side isn’t just about money. Litigation and stuff like I did is stressful because it takes time and a lot of people simply don’t have the patience for it.

    Look, I dunno about that family’s intricate details, nor do i care. You simply don’t know what goes on in families. The stuff I did read about is that one kid supports the big gal while another kid living in NY was complaining she didn’t have a full time cook and a full time driver. I dunno about the other kid’s gripes. Frankly, if those are her problems she doesn’t have many, although a driver in NYC would be neat as it’s a bitch to get around in during bad weather because every other fucker and their dog wants the same cab. So I’m sympathetic to the driver schtick but not the cook. 🙂

    So there, we agree on a detail. Gina should get the kid a full time driver but not a cook. we’re getting somewhere and SL’s request for acknowledgement of differing views has now been met. … No cook, but a driver is okay.

  10. JC
    Posted July 3, 2012 at 6:59 pm | Permalink

    LE

    Most cases, though not all commercial litigation generally involves well to do people. In the Bolt case one side had pro-bono lawyering.

    There are ways of getting around the money issue in most cases. There are of course the truly reprehensible firms like Slater and Gordon who will take a case on with the money funneled to them on the back end if it’s a win and they don’t take a case like that without decent odds there way.

    So I’m really not sure who is losing out here.

    And as I said, it’s difficult to judge what the hell is going on in families. What if the kids abused the mother to hell and back and she decided to stiffen up? We really don’t know enough of the family dynamics.

  11. Mel
    Posted July 3, 2012 at 7:21 pm | Permalink

    Gina has been using gag orders on pretty well everyone, including her own children. She really is a nasty ol’ blimp who needs to be put in her place.

    I can’t think of a good reason for not stripping Gina of her assets and dividing up the proceeds among the lumpenproletariat. From a consequentialist perspective, I can see no other option.

  12. Mel
    Posted July 3, 2012 at 9:29 pm | Permalink

    LE @63:

    “Sigh, Mel, you can’t just strip people of their assets cos you don’t like ‘em, fortunately for all and sundry.”

    Obviously I’m joking.

    Pretty well all the lefties here including me and you disagreed with the Bolt decision.

    But let’s wind back a few years earlier. Pretty well every lefty also disagreed with the Howard Government’s pursuit of Des Kelly and as a consequence two Murdoch journos, Michael Harvey and Gerard McManus.

    But did any of the right wing blog trogs kick up a stink about that? No, of course not. In fact, liberals like Petro Georgiou, who stood up against the Howard Government’s thuggery were routinely ridiculed as softies, fags etc..

    I wouldn’t take the carry-on by the usual suspects on the right with respect to Bolt as evidence of some new found respect for free speech.

    Also bear in mind Skeptic Lawyer arguing that a homosexual man who wrote a gently worded letter to companies that advertise at Online Opinion requesting them to withdraw support for that firm in light OO’s decision to provide a platform for Bill Muehlenberg’s anti-gay hate speech campaign ought to be jailed or otherwise criminally sanctioned under beefed up secondary boycott provisions.

    Neither the conservative right or its conjoined twin the libertarian right are true friends of free speech.

    But having said that, I equally detest those (minority) gutless elements on the Left who supported the Bolt decision.

  13. JC
    Posted July 3, 2012 at 9:33 pm | Permalink

    LE

    Free speech doesn’t necessitate the need to be correct. I dunno if Bolt defamed any of them by not getting a few of the facts right. That would be up the court to decide in a defamatory suit if it came about.

    However what Bolt did was inform the public that the money , taxpayer money… that was supposed to be spent on people the public thought were deserving was going to a bunch of public sector vultures and other assorted snorters. That’s how I understood his argument. From my perspective it was basically correct. If there were a few inconsistencies then they have redress to sue for defamation. However the problem now is that no journalist or media organization will touch that sort of stuff with a barge pole. This injures public discourse in the nation and protects those that shouldn’t be.

    Just lets have a look at what is going on here. A bunch of people tap the public well and Mordy has basically mordified the public’s right to know who is slobbing at the trough. This is our money we’re talking about too.

    Free speech doesn’t mean it has to be fair speech or that the journalist has to be correct. And now we have the potential to see further deep encroachments with the press being finkelsteined. Finkelsteined and mordified. It almost like Kramer’s lawyer speaking in a Seinfeld skit.

  14. JC
    Posted July 3, 2012 at 9:50 pm | Permalink

    Actually Mel, I wasn’t living here when that case against the News limited journos hit. It’s the first time I’ve ever heard of it. I think your link suggests it happened around 2000. Blogs were barely around then. I’m sure News Ltd was against the case, no?

    You may as well bring up cases from the 60’s then as it would be just as relevant in terms of what the web media thought about stuff that happened then.

    Not all Cat people were in support of that boycott thing for the simple reason that it chills free speech.

    But no one there thought it should be stopped, only that the person was being a first rate dick. Gay Taliban is how I think he was described.

  15. JC
    Posted July 3, 2012 at 10:01 pm | Permalink

    I’d leave the Mordy law salone. I wouldn’t touch it except add to it like attacking people for their wealth either individually or as a class, then light up a cigar, lounge comfortably in the tv chair with feet up and listen to the screaming and yelping.

  16. Mel
    Posted July 3, 2012 at 10:02 pm | Permalink

    The Michael Harvey and Gerard McManus case panned out from 2005 to 2007.

    Your paw prints are all over the web during the time the saga commenced (including your IP address, which I suggest you change or have google remove) so I’m rather surprised by your blank memory.

    I mean, this story was a leading news item for three years and you’ve already told us about you’re a tireless advocate for free speech!

  17. JC
    Posted July 3, 2012 at 10:18 pm | Permalink

    Mel Nice touch. Tim doesn’t apply the same rules to himself. You should ask Jason Soon about the several hate emails he received from him..I was told what he sent. Go ask him too. Tim I mean.

    And what exactly does that have to do with the subject?

    And no I have no recollection of it. Nice try though. I noticed you suggested only a few lefties were in support of mordiying Bolt. That’s untrue.

    Moderator, you think there’s a need for Mel to dredge up that stuff at every opportunity and should it be modified? He seems obsessed with it.

  18. Mel
    Posted July 3, 2012 at 10:28 pm | Permalink

    My apologies, JC.

    You claimed you weren’t on the web during the Michael Harvey and Gerard McManus saga and I’ve simply linked to the first thing that shows up on a google search for that timeframe that demonstrates you’ve misremembered the specificities in this instance.

    We all misremember things from time to time and I hope I’ve jolted your memory.

  19. JC
    Posted July 3, 2012 at 10:46 pm | Permalink

    No need to fake an apology Mel as you certainly don’t mean it and makes you appear small.

    I thought you were referring to your earlier link which I incorrectly thought was dated back to 2000 (i made an error) which is why I mentioned the 2000 time frame. But no matter as I have no recollection of it. None. I don;t understand why you think recall is so important though.

    You’re critical of the Howard government over this, but your Alliance government hasn’t exactly done away with the law, have they? The pox on both houses schtick doesn’t really work when finkelstein is taken into account. It’s a whole different, much bigger pile of turd. Nice try though.

  20. Mel
    Posted July 3, 2012 at 10:52 pm | Permalink

    LE @67:

    “Mind you, should you ever need to strip profit from someone, my personal legal speciality is stripping profits for breach of contract and breach of trust (that’s what my book is about).”

    Hmm. I studied law in Year 12 and really enjoyed it. I actually found contract law interesting but I never would have admitted it at the time as it probably would have resulted in a beating from my fellow students!

  21. Mel
    Posted July 3, 2012 at 11:02 pm | Permalink

    JC @79:

    Don’t be such a sad sack, JC. Rudd-Abbott haven’t referred so much as a single case to the AFP under the laws in questions. Moreover, as the Coalition backs the anti- free press laws and the ALP lack control of both houses of parliament, they are obviously in no position to amend the law.

    We haven’t seen a bill presented to parliament in regards to Finklestein’s report, nor will we, so the faux concerns over press freedom are just a sideshow.

    But if you seriously think media freedom will be restricted via legislation resulting from Fink’s report tell us how much money and what odds you’re willing to bet. In other words, shit or get off the pot.

  22. Mel
    Posted July 3, 2012 at 11:03 pm | Permalink

    Oops, that should be Rudd-Gillard. Sorry Mad Monk.

  23. JC
    Posted July 4, 2012 at 12:07 am | Permalink

    Don’t be such a sad sack, JC.

    I’m not. I’m amused by your fake apology.

    Rudd-Abbott haven’t referred so much as a single case to the AFP under the laws in questions. Moreover, as the Coalition backs the anti- free press laws and the ALP lack control of both houses of parliament, they are obviously in no position to amend the law.

    So what, the law is still on the books and it appears the want to add more.

    We haven’t seen a bill presented to parliament in regards to Finklestein’s report, nor will we, so the faux concerns over press freedom are just a sideshow.

    Caucus supports Finkelsteining political opponents.

    Labor caucus members have endorsed the Finkelstein plan in the past week, in a sign of the support within government for greater oversight of the press at a time when MPs rail at coverage.

    This is a government so unpopular that is hitting back at what it sees as it’s opponents and feels it has nothing to lose anymore. It’s in its death throes.

    But if you seriously think media freedom will be restricted via legislation resulting from Fink’s report tell us how much money and what odds you’re willing to bet. In other words, shit or get off the pot.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/ceos-fight-new-media-curbs-as-they-warn-freedom-of-speech-is-at-risk/story-fn59niix-1226416228897

    Bet? I’m actually hoping they do introduce it as it can be used against the left in such a way they won’t know what hit them, as lessons would then need to be learnt and punishment handed out. It will also provide the new government the reason to burn down the ALP/Greens media wing.. The ABC.

    There’s more.

    While the Finkelstein report put forward the news media council as a form of self-regulation, the executives rejected this on the grounds that it would be backed by Canberra and that journalists could be fined or jailed in a process without appeal rights to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

  24. Posted July 4, 2012 at 6:05 am | Permalink

    re JC snipe at Mel: “And how the hell do you know how much she gives to charity? ” (above) –
    Mel may have based her suspicion on the report into Australian philanthropy that I read. Figures based on ATO reporting indicated that the country claims to donate approx $11 billion per year, and the report was surprised that the wealthy mining industry accounted for LESS THAN 1% of that.
    The bulk of the amount came from another surprise – middle aged women. Apologies for not having the hard copy to hand, but it is in my house somewhere.

  25. Tim Watts
    Posted July 4, 2012 at 6:16 am | Permalink

    Well this thread has certainly degenerated overnight.

    LE: No need to stand up for me, I’ve been called far worse things by comrades in the ALP. Low level trolling is no stress (though is unusual for a SL comment thread).

    Just for the benefit of anyone else still reading this trivial drivel, I’m not sure whether JC is referring to me here or another Tim:

    JC: Mel Nice touch. Tim doesn’t apply the same rules to himself. You should ask Jason Soon about the several hate emails he received from him..I was told what he sent. Go ask him too. Tim I mean.

    But for the record, I’ve never contacted Jason Soon about anything and I’ve never sent an abusive email to anyone.

    As I say, it maybe that this was a reference to some other Tim, but I just wanted to be clear b/c I respect the views of the vast bulk of the readers of SL and wouldn’t want anyone to think that was the kind of thing I did with my spare time.

  26. Tim Watts
    Posted July 4, 2012 at 6:42 am | Permalink

    Great – thanks LE. That’s good to know.

    BTW – if I haven’t been impugned enough by working in politics, I’m also a lawyer.

    So I’m a Lying Labor Lawyer apparently 🙂

  27. Posted July 4, 2012 at 6:46 am | Permalink

    There’s also US Tim M as well, but being that he’s in a different timezone, the comment cross-overs aren’t quite as bad. So, a lot of Tims. There are a fair few Davids, too.

    By our standards, this thread really did degenerate, and I should have stepped in earlier. However, there is the small matter that we all have jobs (while DEM has a serious disability, the managing of which is job-like), so things can slip under the radar.

    That said, I have control over who my friends are on Facebook, and even among a group of people both self- and other-selected for courtesy, things got pretty heated.

  28. JC
    Posted July 4, 2012 at 9:53 am | Permalink

    Anne O’Dyne

    Those stats are incomplete. Lots of people donate money anonymously, which by definition means the identity of the person isn’t known.

    Tim Watts.

    I honestly don’t understand how you could have thought I was referring to you in any possible way. But there you go. I wasn’t. Lawyers, at least the ones I know, are good people and again I have no idea why you think I was having a shot at lawyers. I was referring to Mel’s link, which people to Shiny’s website.

    I also lived in your street several moons ago at No 24. and owned 108. Funny old world.

  29. JC
    Posted July 4, 2012 at 9:54 am | Permalink

    oops… which links to..

  30. derrida derider
    Posted July 4, 2012 at 10:39 am | Permalink

    Mel @32 – JC and I go way back. Sometimes I feel like playing the game, sometimes not. Today not.

  31. JC
    Posted July 4, 2012 at 10:45 am | Permalink

    Why not DD, you’re always invited. You know that.

    You need to apologize for misleading the readership about the News ltd comment you made please. You said News doesn’t own profitable broadsheets. It does. Hence the apology required.

  32. 3d1k
    Posted July 4, 2012 at 6:05 pm | Permalink

    Quite enjoyed reading this thread. Always surprised that Rinehart provokes such strong reaction, particularly negative reaction – from those that have very little genuine knowledge of the woman. Always a surprise to see those on what I loosely term ‘the left’ supporting additional government interference and intervention in the media – can’t think what the outcry would have been if Howard had instigated Finkelstein and supported such nebulous concepts as fit and proper etc in order to operate in media…

  33. TerjeP
    Posted July 4, 2012 at 7:16 pm | Permalink

    The Fairfax iPAD app is actually terrific. If everybody had iPADs they could axe their entire printing budget. Not sure if that helps.

  34. Abu Chowdah
    Posted July 5, 2012 at 2:55 pm | Permalink

    I can’t think of a good reason for not stripping Gina of her assets and dividing up the proceeds among the lumpenproletariat. From a consequentialist perspective, I can see no other option.

    Is that a serious comment?

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*