Because the Wire is the closest I’ve ever known TV come to sheer poetry. Just watch this. It moves me.
Incidentally, getting back on topic, I’m surprised no-one has done a parody of panicked Conservative staffers using Wire talk to discuss how D’s been given a cap in his ass by some new mo’fo. Step on up, someone.
(PS Check out from 03:55 in for exactly what they want to say after a reverse: “You do not get to win, sh1tbird, we do!)
Freethinking Economist 
Sh111111t, I must get round to watching the Wire, everyone is talking about it. I admit I’ve probably done the Wire and the IMF report in the wrong order…
For people who love the Wire, this video captures a lot of it – but the way it all hangs together is also fine. Amazing the sheer affection you gain for superbly portrayed homicidal lunatics.
Make every opportunity. I can only do so when left alone in the house because C hasn’t taken to it.
“You do not get to win, sh1tbird, we do!”
I think that’s what most of Fleet Street seems to be saying at the moment.
The Wire election quotes.
“We ain’t gotta dream no more, man.” – Stringer [SPAD] Bell
“World goin’ one way, people another.” – Poot [Polling data collector]
“Just ’cause they’re in the street doesn’t mean that they lack opinions.” – Haynes [Polling data collector]
“I love the first day, man. Everybody all friendly an’ shit.” – Any MP in a swing vote area this week.
“If you have a problem with this, I understand completely.” – Desperate swing area door knocker
“They used to make steel there, no?” – Spiros Vondas (Formerly employed Sheffield steel worker)
“Don’t matter how many times you get burnt, you just keep doin’ the same.” – Wilhelm Bodie Hagos
“There’s never been a paper bag other than what George has been trying to fight his way out of for the past couple of weeks .” – Colvin
“Why you got to go and fuck with the New Deal program?” – Fruit G Brown
“Maybe we won.” – Herc@4.30am 7th May
7th May -Hung Parliament
“I had such fuckin’ hopes for us.” – All three.
“Call it a crisis of leadership.” – Proposition post-election Joe
“Might as well dump ’em, get another.” – Proposition post-election Joe
“No one wins. One side just loses more slowly.” – Prez[za]
“We got our thing, but it’s just part of the big thing that’s called big society.” – Zenobia Queen of the East-End.
“What they need is a government.” – Russell
See, that is what I wanted (y’feel me?)
Looking at the papers today I would put Cleggy in the position of the police chief who allows the drug markets.
The papers are noting today that Cleggy has argued for legalisation of brothels. An obviously sane, simple and righteous thing to do, as with the drug markets in The Wire. But he’ll be shouted down just as the police chief was.
It’s that old repugnant markets thing again. The liberal (you know, real liberal) thing to do with repugnant markets is to allow them to exist for what is repugnant to some or many is not so to all.
“The liberal (you know, real liberal) thing to do with repugnant markets is to allow them to exist for what is repugnant to some or many is not so to all.”
Er, no Tim, that’s just an argument for crass relativism.
Imagine: well to you it’s wrong to murder babies – but to others it is not repugnant. Therefore lets legalise baby-murdering huts, where those who want to baby-murder can do it leagally”.
Doesn’t work, does it? just because there’s a market for something it doesn’t follow that the state/society should allow that market to exist.
However, in the case of prostitution if we’re interested in harm reduction and helping women rather than puritanical moralising, then I agree that forms of legalisation are probably better than what we have now. But that’s because legalisation leads to better consequences, not because “there’s supply and demand so therefore the best thing to do is just legalise the market”. Otherwise you’d have to coutnenance legalising baby-murder in the hypothetical world in which there’s a market for that.
“Imagine: well to you it’s wrong to murder babies – but to others it is not repugnant. Therefore lets legalise baby-murdering huts, where those who want to baby-murder can do it leagally”. Doesn’t work, does it? just because there’s a market for something it doesn’t follow that the state/society should allow that market to exist”
There are baby murdering huts? Someone should be told.
An elegant and measured rebuttal of the liberal view of markets, thanks Paul.
“There are baby murdering huts? Someone should be told. ”
No. That was something called an “example”, or if you like “a thought experiment”. We use such things to illustrate arguments and to determine whether one has been correctly construed.
“An elegant and measured rebuttal of the liberal view of markets, thanks Paul.”
It was neither a rebuttal of “the liberal view of markets” nor intended as one. It was, rather, intended to demonstrate that Tim’s claim that if there is a market for something, it straightforwardly follows that the market should be legalised, cannot be correct. Other factors matter too. Like whether the ethical consequences of such a market are intollerable. And those ethical consequences don’t just go away by saying “one man’s moral repugnancy is another’s virtue”, as Tim seemed to be implying.
A clue to the fact that I wasn’t trying to rebut “the liberal view of markets” is that most liberals don’t actually think that just because there is a potential market, that market must thereby automatically be allowed to exist. Hence why most liberals would be appalled by the HYPOTHETICAL prospect of a baby-murdering market, and would surely say that the liberal state must restrict such markets. Something like that classic liberal principle of J.S. Mill – that activities are to be allowed so long as they don’t harm others – could be handy for justifying the restriction of such a market. And few liberals would be worried that this restriction promotes one ethical view – that babies shouldn’t be murdered – over another, which sees this not as “repugnant” but as lovely. That’s the crass relativism Tim was implying, and which liberals don’t tend to adhere to.
So pace your drive-by shooting of a caricature of what I’m saying, it might be helpful to read what I actually wrote. Because I wasn’t attacking “the liberal view of markets”, but rather saying that “the liberal view of markets” is a damn sight more sophisticated than the crass relativism of libertarian Tim.
As with my annoyance with Sandel, I would be more convinced if the example was not baby murdering huts but something closer to real world. Extrapolate to infinity till you find something repulsive; use that to add enormous colour to the argument – it just seems a bit shrill.
Tim said markets for something ‘what is repugnant to some or many is not so to all.’ I would have thought ‘repugnant to 99.99% of the population’ ought not to slip through the net. Tim is a bright guy – do you think that by making that statement he felt he was proposing a system that legitimises infanticide? (“Damn, I knew my argument had a weakness! – I guess I should be grateful someone pointed it out to me before I went out and did something with it ….”)
The prostitution argument seems more interesting.
to be fair to Sandel, he has moved off cannabilism etc onto some more interesting examples. Really enjoying it now.
I also thought Paul’s example was not to the point. The babies don’t get a say in whether they go into the “huts”. But legalisation of prostitution is only viable if we believe that all parties have freedom of choice. The link with people trafficking and other forms of violence makes that very moot.
I agree: I think we need an example that enough people find disturbingly wrong to be salient, but not one that so obviously bumps against other moral laws that would eliminate it before we got to the point when the argument was ‘should there be a market for X’
Sandel does organ markets. Kidney for sale anyone?
but there are plenty of things that I find revolting that I nevertheless can’t say ‘ there should be no market for it’. Like, say, ITV dramas, if the ‘degrading humanity’ reason is to bear. Some country and western music.
“but there are plenty of things that I find revolting that I nevertheless can’t say ‘ there should be no market for it’. Like, say, ITV dramas, if the ‘degrading humanity’ reason is to bear. Some country and western music.”
Oh, indeed.
But there’s a difference between finding Country and Western revolting, and finding – say – rape and murder revolting. Hence most people prefer to have the latter outlawed and not the former. Even if there might be a market for the latter.
Not all value judgements carry equal weight or force, after all. But it doesn’t follow that because you wouldn’t outlaw Country and Western that you would legalise rape.
though p.s. you are right about Clegg being in the Bunny Corville position re legalisation. Prostitution is relavantly similar to drugs in this respect: people/the media just go swivel-eyed and nobody can have a sensible conversation.
Does Paul’s argument really stand up?
Its just that prostitution is repugnant in the same way as baby murder is.
People find prostitution repugnant because they don’t think prostitutes should do that with their bodies.
People find baby murder repugnant because babies have a right to life.
Its not a coherent comparison and that is why it doesn’t work. Hand back that PPE Paul.
Its just that prostitution is NOT repugnant in the same way as baby murder is.
Bugger.
“Its just that prostitution is repugnant in the same way as baby murder is.”
That’s not my argument.
At all.
hence why I say that Tim is right that prostitution maybe should be legalised, but WRONG to say that it’s just because there happens to be a market for it. There could be a market for baby murder – but we don’t want to legalise that.
“do you think that by making that statement he felt he was proposing a system that legitimises infanticide?”
“Imagine: well to you it’s wrong to murder babies – but to others it is not repugnant. Therefore lets legalise baby-murdering huts, where those who want to baby-murder can do it leagally”.”
So let’s run this the other way. I think (and yes, I actually do) that abortion is baby murdering. We have in our society baby murdering huts, we call them abortion clinics.
Why is it that the transaction you find repugnant should be banned by law while the one I find equally, if not more so, is a precious right that must not only be defended but paid for with my taxes?
“Why is it that the transaction you find repugnant should be banned by law while the one I find equally, if not more so, is a precious right that must not only be defended but paid for with my taxes?”
Because my side got hold the power of the state apparatus and changed the law in our favour.
That’s about all there is to it, at the political level.
Of course, I think you are making ethical mistakes and that you are wrong to think that foetuses are babies. Accordingly, I am happy to countenance the practice of abortion. But I think babies have a different moral status to unborn clusters of cells, therefore I don’t countenance baby murder.
But that aside, do you see the glorious self-contradictory irony in your position? If you believe what you said before – that if there’s a market, then just legalise it – then you can’t consistenly be against abortion. We know there’s definitely a market for that – so presumably you think the liberal thing to do is have a legal abortion market (leaving aside for now the curve-ball issue of whether your taxes should be used to pay for it; let’s imagine free-market utopia where everyone is rich enough to afford their own), and there’s nothing more to it? but surely if you think that abortion is WRONG, then you want to consider preventing the market from operating?
Maybe not, maybe you have a more sophisticated position. But that’s just the point: you will have to have a more sophisticated position or else you are going to be committed to two contradictory positions: a) abortion is wrong and b) there is a market for abortion therefore legalise the market – yet if you really believe b), it’s hard to see how you really believe a). Which tells us that b) isn’t really what you believe – because it’s a crass and stupid position.
Is Tim in favour of banning abortion? I’d be interested to know.
“Is Tim in favour of banning abortion? I’d be interested to know.”
How gloriously illiberal.
And patriarchal.
Women’s rights? Nah, it’s the non-sentient cluster of cells that takes priority, and the power of the state must be brought to bear in order to control her body.
Incidentally Tim, as you’re not a god botherer what is your rationale for thinking that foetuses are babies? It can’t be that they have souls. And what do you think about the rights of women who want to get rid of unborn non-sentient clusters of cells and thus remain in control of their lives?
I haven’t heard back that Tim is in favour of banning abortion for people who feel differently from him yet: just that he personally is against it. Like me and country and western, to be unforgivably flip. I think you need to wait till he has said that before you can accuse him of these things.
Not quite right. Country and Western you can choose whether or not to stick it on; Tim can’t choose whether or not to have an abortion, being male.
This all reminds me of the controlling the curriculum debate: people who want an enforced curriculum will use the extreme example of Creationists to justify it. If we just let schools do what they want, then we are condoning Creationism, went the Fabian Review article, I think.
OK, I’ll try again.
I am not saying that prostitution is the same as murdering babies. Indeed, my argument turns precisely on the point that they are NOT the same. Let’s do this carefully.
Tim’s original comment was:
“It’s that old repugnant markets thing again. The liberal (you know, real liberal) thing to do with repugnant markets is to allow them to exist for what is repugnant to some or many is not so to all.”
This argument goes: if there is a market for something – even if that thing is repugnant to others – we should allow it. That is The Liberal Thing To Do.
I am questioning that. I am using an extreme example as the best way of showing you that Tim’s claim is not one that we should accept. It is a thought experiment, designed to show that Tim’s position entails consequences we would/should not be happy with. To wit:
If it is the case that if there is a potential market then we should simply allow that market to exist legally, and that is all there is to it, then we would have to countenance a market for baby murder should a potential market for such a thing exist. Again: imagine a world in which 10% of the population want to murder babies and 2% want to supply that demand. We have a potential market. Should the state legalise it? Manifestly not. Why? Well, at the most basic level because baby murder is wrong, and even if some people (the 12%) disagree, the rest of society comes to the aid of the babies and prevents such transactions from taking place. Hence: even though we had the potential for a market, the state was used to prevent that market taking place because the ethical consequences of allowing such a market were deemed intolerable – and regardless of whether the 12% disagreed.
Now prostitution is not the same, as people have pointed out (sometimes bizarrely concluding that I am equating it with baby murder, which obviously I’m not). Let’s imagine that there is indeed a market for prostitution. Should we allow it? Well, as Tim rightly points out at my place and his own, it looks like legalising prostitution will reduce the harm suffered by prostitutes (safer conditions, no criminal records, etc etc). Accordingly, we might want to say “OK, the best thing to do is to legalise prostitution”. But the reason we come to this conclusion is not the crass and simple observation that “there is a market for prostitution” and the even more crass conclusion “we must therefore legalise the market, because it is a market” it’s because we are aiming to reduce harm to prostitutes and legalising that trade looks like a better way of promoting that aim (i’m keeping things simple – there will be other ethical factors as well). The case is manifestly not the same with the baby-murderers. Why? Because legalising a baby murder market would increase harm to babies, which we are against increasing harm to babies As a result, even though there might be a market for baby-murder, we don’t conclude that such a market should be legalised (unless, of course, it could be shown that such legalisation would recude harm to babies – which, unlike prostitution, is manifestly extremely unlikely).
So my baby-murder example isn’t supposed to be drawing any parallel’s with prostitution either as an ethical practice or as regards legislative prescription. It’s supposed to show that we don’t legalise markets SIMPLE BECAUSE they are markets, but because of other factors – for example, the likely amount of harm caused or avoided.
And that’s why it’s fine to use an extreme example, because I would have thought nobody in their right mind would want to say that baby murdering is fine – and therefore nobody in their right mind would want to legalise a market for murdering babies. From which we conclude: that we don’t legalise markets just because they are markets, as Tim originally claimed. (And no, Tim, we can’t just relativise this and say “oh but it’s all just opinion, let the market decide” – if you think baby murdering really is wrong, you can’t be happy about a world in which other people are happily murdering babies under the full auspices of the law. Ethical commitments just don’t work like that). Prostitution is different – hence we might legalise such a market. But not because it’s a market, but because we aim (amongst other things) to reduce harm.
My problem with this is: I cannot possibly imagine a baby murder market. And I think the situations in which markets DO exist in this world are those where there are a multiplicity of buyers and sellers, whose actions that sum together make the market. I cannot even picture it. I know there are baby murderers, but for a market to exist, there needs to be more than just someone who likes doing X.
In a sense, it becomes empirical: when there is enough of something out there for people to accurately say ‘there is even a MARKET for this stuff’, then we tend to be out of baby-murdering territory. For your criticism to have more weight with me, I would need more than just an imagined market in a thing, but some really repulsive markets that do exist. Child porn, perhaps? But summoning an imaginarily-dreadful market doesn’t have the weight for me, because I am not sure I have got round my head the idea that such a market really can exist in any world close to mine.
“If there is a market then it must be moral’ is clearly a bit simple minded. I think a more thorough questioning of where TIm’s ‘repugnant’ turns into ‘shockingly evil’ may be more interesting.
It’s just an example, though. You could use child pornography to similar effect. Or subprime no doc liar loans.
Why can’t you imagine it?
It’s not that hard. Think of Nigeria, where children are ritually sacrificed.
There. You have a baby-murder market.
““If there is a market then it must be moral’ is clearly a bit simple minded.”
Well, it’s what Tim said. And I corrected him. And everyone went ape-shit at me.
“I think a more thorough questioning of where TIm’s ‘repugnant’ turns into ’shockingly evil’ may be more interesting.”
Like murdering babies? Or if you like, ritually sacrificing them?
Sorry, how is what is going on in Nigeria a market? If you interpret a market as ‘any stuff that people do’ then everything is a market, and Tim’s statement is trivialised to: ‘if people do it, then it must be OK’, which is easy to attack with examples like baby murdering.
That is my biggest complaint: the leap to imagining a marketin something dreadful, rather than imagining it happening in some way. I have always thought one of the objections to a very RW way of looking at things, is that everything can be a market, when we really know (we sane people, you me and I suspect Tim) that most things that happen – be they wicked or good or run of the mill – are not markets.
It is because I think that there are rather large leaps to be made before there is a Market in X that I think you can’t go from Tim’s statement to ‘you must approve of baby murdering then’
Well in Nigeria, people ritually sacrifice children. That’s enough for you to get your head around the idea that sometimes people want to murder babies (for whatever reason). That was what I took you to have difficulty with – now fill in the blanks yourself and imagine Nigerian businessmen supplying children-for-sacrifice at competitive rates.
But ok, if you’re insisting on something empirical, how about this: once upon a time there was a market for black people from Africa, in order to put them to forced labour in north America. Was “The Liberal Thing To Do” to legalise (or rather, continue to legalise) this market?
And don’t just come back with “oh but the black people didn’t wan’t to be slaves”, because that’s precisely one of my points. When we make ethical decisions, we take into account a wide range of factors – agency being one of them – which tells us that…we don’t legalise things just because there are markets for them. Which, once again, proves that Tim’s original comment was wrong. The Liberal Thing To Do is much more complicated than just legalising markets willy nilly.
“I haven’t heard back that Tim is in favour of abortion yet: just that he personally is against it. Like me and country and western, to be unforgivably flip.”
Oh really? You think that being against abortion is a value judgement of the same order as not liking Country and Western? You think that being a committed anti abortionist is the same as being a committed anti-C&Wer? In which case, my wanting to carry out abortions is the same as my wanting to listen to C&W? And there is no essential difference? Is that really what you think?
Because I don’t believe you.
No – I just haven’t heard what Tim says about banning abortion for people other than him, yet. Maybe we’ll get to find out.
I think we might have saved a lot of words if the slavery market was used from comment 1. Though I still think some commonsense caveats could save Tim’s position from such extremism. My scepticism about the ‘argument from extreme extrapoloation’ is not greatly diminished by these exchanges.
“I think we need an example that enough people find disturbingly wrong to be salient”
What, like murdering babies?
“but not one that so obviously bumps against other moral laws that would eliminate it before we got to the point when the argument was ’should there be a market for X’”
but that’s the point – we need an extreme example to show that Tim’s claim that markets just should be legalised because they are markets can’t be the right story.
“I am questioning that. I am using an extreme example as the best way of showing you that Tim’s claim is not one that we should accept. It is a thought experiment, designed to show that Tim’s position entails consequences we would/should not be happy with. To wit:
If it is the case that if there is a potential market then we should simply allow that market to exist legally, and that is all there is to it, then we would have to countenance a market for baby murder should a potential market for such a thing exist.”
Oh dear. This is why we try to teach philosophers economics. So that we don’t have to keep repeating the basic assumptions all the time.
“Market” by definition means “voluntary exchange”. Babies don’t consent to being killed. And it’s not just that they don’t, they can’t, for we regard them as incompetent to take part in the “voluntary” part of anything.
By my being really, to me, quite obvious and yet clearly to Paul impenetrable, all of the examples that Paul gives are ruled out by the use of “repugnant markets”. If I had said “repugnant actions” he would have a point.
But I didn’t. The assumption that we are talking about actions which are voluntarily entered into by the participants is explicit in the use of the word “market”. For if it isn’t a voluntary transaction then it’s not a market one.
Well in Nigeria, people ritually sacrifice children. That’s enough for you to get your head around the idea that sometimes people want to murder babies (for whatever reason). That was what I took you to have difficulty with – now fill in the blanks yourself and imagine Nigerian businessmen supplying children-for-sacrifice at competitive rates.
But ok, if you’re insisting on something empirical, how about this: once upon a time there was a market for black people from Africa, in order to put them to forced labour in north America. Was “The Liberal Thing To Do” to legalise (or rather, continue to legalise) this market?
And don’t just come back with “oh but the black people didn’t wan’t to be slaves”, because that’s precisely one of my points. When we make ethical decisions, we take into account a wide range of factors – agency being one of them – which tells us that…we don’t legalise things just because there are markets for them. Which, once again, proves that Tim’s original comment was wrong. The Liberal Thing To Do is much more complicated than just legalising markets willy nilly.
“I haven’t heard back that Tim is in favour of abortion yet: just that he personally is against it. Like me and country and western, to be unforgivably flip.”
Oh really? You think that being against abortion is a value judgement of the same order as not liking Country and Western? You think that being a committed anti abortionist is the same as being a committed anti-C&Wer? In which case, my wanting to carry out abortions is the same as my wanting to listen to C&W? And there is no essential difference? Is that really what you think?
Because I don’t believe you.
Good grief, I knew I shouldn’t have mentioned abortion,. It always ends up like this.
Sigh.
“But that aside, do you see the glorious self-contradictory irony in your position? If you believe what you said before – that if there’s a market, then just legalise it – then you can’t consistenly be against abortion.”
You’ve missed the extremely important point I made above about the definition of “market”. It necessarily means voluntary participation. If things are happening or being done to people who ain’t there voluntarily then it ain’t a market.
“Maybe not, maybe you have a more sophisticated position.”
Yes, I do.
“Is Tim in favour of banning abortion?”
No.
“Incidentally Tim, as you’re not a god botherer what is your rationale for thinking that foetuses are babies?”
My reasons are entirely humanist. We humans have, simply and purely because we are humans, certain inalienable rights. Among which is the right not to have your head ripped off just because some other human doesn’t want you to be alive.
As to when humanity starts, difficult I think we all agree. The current rule of thumb is viability but the truth, as we all know, is that it’s a Sorites problem, there simply isn’t an accurate dividing line. Adults, of sound mind and so on definitely are. Teenagers aren’t fully, kids ain’t fully, babies ain’t fully and nor are foeti or blastocysts. i’m just putting my dividing line, my definition of heap, at one grain, at conception.
and please, let’s not go spiralling off into why I’m wrong and so on: my own maother has been shouting at me about this view for 30 years now. We’re not going to move me in a blog comment box.
“““If there is a market then it must be moral’ is clearly a bit simple minded.”
Well, it’s what Tim said. And I corrected him. And everyone went ape-shit at me.”
Because you’re ignoring the things implicit in the word “market”. Explicit even. It must be voluntary exchange. If it isn’t it’s not a market transaction.
“When we make ethical decisions, we take into account a wide range of factors – agency being one of them – which tells us that…we don’t legalise things just because there are markets for them.”
I’ve not said we do or should. I’ve said that where there are voluntary transactions we should not ban them because we find those voluntary transactions repugnant. Slavery isn’t a voluntary transaction, nor is baby sacrificing. Thus a ban is potentially legitimate….and in those two case yes, I agree, legitimate.
Come along now, you’re bright enough to see the difference between “I will do this” and “I will allow this to be done to myself” and the other, “I should be allowed to do this to someone else without their consent”.
For example, I’m against using whipping people asw a method of, well, just about anything really. Yet I have no desire at all, indeed would regard it as repugnant if we tried, to stop those Phillipino flagellants getting on each Good Friday. There’s a difference betwee what we don’t allow people to do to others without their consent and what we allow people to do to themselves.
I’m sure we both agree that killing people is wrong ….but I’d bet fair that you’re in favour of legalised and or assisted suicide. Again, what we do to others against their will is different from what we do to ourselves voluntarily.
Finally, as to abortion itself, yes, I’m agin it in all forms except the immediate health of the mother (ie, ectopic pregancies and the like….and even the Catholic Church allows that).
The reason I don’t campaign for it to be banned is twofold. Partly that I can’t see that my moral reasoning should be imposed upon others and, sadly perhaps more important, given that I’m one of about three people with quite such vehement views on the subject I cannot see any method of making it happen in a way that wouldn’t make the world worse than it currently is.
It might even be possible to pick a sliver or two of liberalness out of that position.
“Phillipino flagellants getting on each Good Friday”
“Filipinos” surely?
““Filipinos””
Indeed.
“Though I still think some commonsense caveats could save Tim’s position from such extremism.”
As I keep, desperately by now, trying to point out, the use of the word “market” is exactly that caveat. Markets are by definition “voluntary exchage”. Slaves, sacrificial babies, don’t volunteer.
But where adults (yes, caveats again, compos mentis and all that) do voluntarily exchange then yes, the existence of the market means that even if we find it repugnant we shouldn’t ban it.
To be extreme: no, killing people to eat them is wrong and we should ban it. But what happens when someone wants to be killed to be eaten? That case in Germany (the killer cooked the cock of the bloke about to be killed and they shared it!) where the now dead and eaten had agreed and was indeed very keen on it?
That’s my dividing line. Voluntary exchange among adults is just fine (although thankfully extremely rare in cases of cannibalism). Involuntary sacrifice, slavery etc are not. For, again, involuntary ain’t a market.
This is what I suspected. People do X and there is a Market in X are very different statements, and the latter requires a much higher burden of preexisting conditions before proven to be the case. And I had a feeling you did not believe in banning abortion, thanks for confirming that.
Now, I’m sure we’ve got better things to do, like reading nickcleggsfault on twitter
Wow. And none of that anything to do with the original post.
🙂
I loved watching the wire but I don’t know if I could ever do it again, it was too emotionally intense, even looking at that video or thinking about it fills me with deep emotions.
SPOILER: The best scene in the whole series is when Bodie kills Wallace, now that is intense.
Agreed, saw that, amazing. Though I think the 2nd series was underrated.
Should I be saving up for Homicide as well?