New York's Soda Ban Is Still Dead

Mayor Bloomberg loses in court, again.

Earlier this week a four-judge panel became the latest New York State court to rule that New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s reviled and ridiculed soda ban is unconstitutional. That’s five judges now who’ve all told Bloomberg, on two occasions, what almost everyone but him and those in his employ seems to know: You can’t do that.

But Bloomberg still isn’t listening.

Both the mayor and the city’s lead attorney, Michael Cardozo, promised to appeal this latest loss one last time. But it’s no sure bet that New York State’s highest court will bother to entertain what would be Bloomberg’s last-available appeal.

This week’s unanimous decision, written by New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division Judge Diane T. Renwick and joined by her three colleagues, echoes the decision handed down in March by Supreme Court Judge Milton Tingling, which halted the ban before it could take effect.

After Judge Tingling’s ruling, I called the ban “dead.” I’m here to update that news: Like Generalissimo Francisco Franco, it’s still dead.

Here’s why.

Opponents, including Keep Food Legal, the nonprofit I lead, claimed the ban was unconstitutional in part because the health department exceeded its authority under the state constitution when it adopted the ban. As Judge Tingling had done in his withering decision, the appeals court here seized on that fact.

The appeals court notes from the outset of its decision that Mayor Bloomberg ignored a letter opposing the soda ban sent to him by 14 members of the city council, who implored the mayor at the least to put his proposed ban to a vote before the council.

In a stinging rebuke that could have been delivered (though with less aplomb and panache) by any second-year law student worth their salt, the court dismissed out of hand the mayor's argument that the city's health department has any legislative powers. The court called this "a fundamental misunderstanding of the power of administrative agencies" on the part of the Bloomberg administration.

The court called the soda ban “violative of the principle of separation of powers.”

"Because the constitution vests legislative power in the legislature," Judge Renwick explains in a sentence that appears to be ripped from an Administrative Law professor's day-one lecture notes, "administrative agencies may only effect policy mandated by statute and cannot exercise sweeping power to create whatever rule they deem necessary." Ouch.

The court also disputed the mayor's claim that "compelling" evidence links soda consumption to obesity. In fact, the court blasted the city's claims that the soda ban had anything to do with science.

(Article continues below video.)

"[D]espite the City’s argument to the contrary," wrote Judge Renwick in her ruling, "the Board did not bring any scientific or health expertise to bear in creating the Portion Cap Rule. Indeed, the rule was drafted, written and proposed by the Office of the Mayor and submitted to the Board, which enacted it without substantive changes." She continued that "soda consumption cannot be classified as a health hazard per se" because the very city health department that adopted the ban "has never categorized soda and the other targeted sugary drinks as inherently unhealthy."

Critics, including especially me, had criticized the alleged "science" upon which the health department relied prior to its adoption of the ban. As I wrote in comments Keep Food Legal filed in opposition to the ban before it was adopted, "the only evidence [the health department] cites as support for... its proposed ban is a 2005 Annual Review of Public Health journal article. Yet the cited article... merely cites in pertinent part an earlier study concluding 'that technology may be primarily responsible for the obesity epidemic.'”

As I then wrote, "the study that [the health department] has used as the very foundation of its proposed ban offers little or no support for banning soda of any size, and might better be used to support a ban on iPhones, televisions, or public transportation."

It’s not difficult to find support among straphangers for Judge Renwick’s decision.

New Yorkers interviewed by local news station NY1 this week were unanimous in siding with the court.

George Washington University Law School Professor Jonathan Turley questioned Mayor Bloomberg's wisdom in deciding to appeal the latest ruling, calling the soda ban "a law that is not only paternalistic but utterly unconstitutional."

Turley, who last year called the ban "facially absurd," labeled it this week "the ultimate example of the 'Nanny state' where the government dictates the proper lifestyle choices and risks for adults."

And he blasted the ban as a scheme designed "to take away choice and to dictate Dr. Bloomberg’s diet for all citizens."

My only immediate criticism of Judge Tingling’s ruling in March riffed along those same lines. I wrote then that “I’d like to see the court being more vocal in defending people’s rights to make their own choices[.]"

Judge Renwick has done just that. In her decision, she writes that the ban "infring[es] on individual rights" and "manipulates choices to try to change consumer norms."

"Instead of offering information and letting the consumer decide," she writes, "the Board’s decision effectively relies upon the behavioral economics concept that consumers are pushed into better behavior when certain choices are made less convenient."

But Judge Renwick also took pains to note that her ruling did not preclude future "soda consumption restrictions, provided that they are enacted by the government body with the authority to do so." That, we are left to presume, would be New York's elected City Council.

But Turley, the George Washington University Law School professor, isn't optimistic that route would be any more successful, writing it "would trigger another constitutional challenge."

Thankfully, time is running out for the mayor. After all, Mayor Bloomberg’s mayoral carriage of nearly 12 years is nearly ready to turn back into a pumpkin. His term in office ends just 150 days from today.

In 2008, before he pulled a Putin, Bloomberg urged his staff to watch the clock as his term as mayor drew to a close. Now it’s regular New Yorkers who have their eyes on that prize.

And, as I wrote last month, none of Bloomberg’s likely successors as mayor support this ban. That means Bloomberg is likely throwing taxpayer money hand over fist into this series of appeals in an effort to resuscitate a rule that five judges have already found to be patently unconstitutional and which the person who succeeds him in office is likely to revoke even Bloomberg’s last-gasp court efforts were to succeed.

We’ve heard a good deal recently about how New Yorkers don’t quit. That’s an admirable trait to a point—a point that Mayor Bloomberg has long since passed.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The court called this "a fundamental misunderstanding of the power of administrative agencies" on the part of the Bloomberg administration.

    He learned it from watching Obama, okay?

    Everyone hates their legislatures, but imagine where we would be without the body of idiots who make our laws being pulled in different directions but stupid voters and insidious interest groups. We would have one dipshit issuing horrid fiats based on corrupt intent or fanciful whims or an honest will to do good but an inability to see all the consequences of his decrees.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    He learned it from watching Obama

    Yeah, that was my first thought. This has to be the most unconstrained executive in my lifetime. I remember when liberals used to constantly worry about such things, using terms like "imperial presidency" and "unitary executive." Of course that was wayyy, wayyy back in the mists of time, in the dark ages prior to 2009.

    “violative of the principle of separation of powers.”

    So when do we get to apply this principle to the federal government?

  • John||

    Just as soon as those racist tea bagging rethuglicans manage to elect a president.

  • Palin's Buttplug||


    Bush Claims Executive Privilege on Subpoenas

    By Michael Abramowitz and Amy Goldstein
    Washington Post Staff Writers
    Friday, June 29, 2007

    The White House invoked executive privilege yesterday in withholding subpoenaed documents on fired U.S. attorneys out of confidence that it can prevail in court and weather a political storm by blaming Congress for overreaching, administration officials said.

    White House counsel Fred F. Fielding said in a letter to the chairmen of the Senate and House judiciary committees that President Bush will not make available the requested documents or permit testimony by two former senior aides about White House and Justice Department calculations in the firing of nine federal prosecutors.

  • AlmightyJB||

    It's like a broken record. Even Jon Stewart has moved on and he was getting paid to Boooosh.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Fatty needed to be reminded what a Unitary Executive is.

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug| 8.3.13 @ 11:31AM |#
    "Fatty needed to be reminded what a Unitary Executive is."

    Yeah, but we don't need to be reminded of what a lying pile of shit you are.

  • fish_remote||

    Yeah, but we don't need to be reminded of what a lying pile of shit you are.

    Now Sevo....that's a little harsh don't you think? I don't think shreeky is a "lying piece of shit".....he does self admittedly stop that shit from escaping! Sacrifices for the greater good I would say!

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    How tall are you, Shreek?!?

    /Gny. Sgt. Hartman

  • anon||

    I didn't know they stacked shit that high!

  • Fatty Bolger||

    No, idiot. I was trying to remind you and your ilk.

  • Irish||

    BOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHH DID IT TOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

  • Irish||

    Barack Obama invokes Executive Privilege over fast and furious documents.

    WASHINGTON — Just as the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform was about to vote Eric H. Holder Jr. in contempt of Congress for failing to comply with a subpoena for documents in the flawed Fast and Furious gun-tracking case, President Obama asserted executive privilege and backed up the attorney general’s position in refusing to turn over the material.
  • General Butt Naked||

    Unpossible!

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Thanks, PB, exactly my point. People like you and the Washington Post suddenly stopped caring about this stuff as soon as a certain somebody took office.

    Hey, remember how Obama fired an Inspector General shortly after taking office, because he was investigating a buddy of his? I can't blame you if you don't remember, because the media made a minor note of it and then moved on. Amazing what a difference two years makes, huh?

  • Dweebston||

    But Bush fired a bunch of AGs, therefore tu quoque.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    US President George Bush and his administration have been issued with subpoenas for the allegations that they were wiretapping the conversations of US citizens illegally, reports the Los Angeles Times.

    The Bush administration claims that the powers given to him in wartime meant that he was allowed to authorise the wiretapping without following the warrant route and thus breaking no laws.

    http://voices.yahoo.com/bush-a.....tml?cat=62

  • ||

    Mendacious cunt!

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I don't think it is mendacious to point out a true fact. A tu quoque, but not mendacious.

  • Irish||

    I think mendacious is the wrong word too. It's dishonest spin because both Bush and Obama have done this and PB somehow thinks Bush doing it was worse.

    In order for something to be mendacious it has to be a lie though.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I don't take that to be his spin. I think his spin is that most of the commenters here are really Republicans instead of libertarians, so when they criticize Obama he points out that 'their guy' did it to or originated the program.

    I'm not an expert on these convoluted and secretive programs, but I actually think an argument can be made that what Bush did was worse (no warrant, less minimization techniques, and wiretapping vs. collection of metadata with a warrant). But Bush is out of office, Obama is in.

  • Irish||

    Yes, but it is spin because he's trying to argue that we shouldn't be criticizing the Obama administration because Bush was worse. The Bush issue he posted is from 6 years ago and has nothing to do with what anyone was talking about. Plus, Obama has actually done the exact same thing when it comes to invoking executive privilege so that his pets at the DOJ don't have to testify about all of their malfeasance and illegal activities.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    No, Bo Cara is correct.

    I only point out how bad Bush was when someone like Fatty above says something as patently false as This has to be the most unconstrained executive in my lifetime..

  • sgs||

    Bush was bad, Obama is worse.

    The reason you get shit is because you only show up to screech "booosh", if you were honest, you'd be in here screeching about Obama at least some of the time.

    It is your inveterate, childish defense of leftists while claiming neutrality that is mendacious.

  • Sevo||

    "I only point out how bad Bush was when someone like Fatty above says something as patently false as This has to be the most unconstrained executive in my lifetime.."

    So you respond to an obvious fact with a lie.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    as patently false as This has to be the most unconstrained executive in my lifetime.

    "Patently false?" While I believe it could be argued others were less constrained, I don't see where that's readily open to common observation.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I do not fault someone who concludes that Bush was worse than Obama, but I do fault someone who cannot seem to admit fault with or criticize Obama at all, and I cannot say I've seen you criticize his administration at all.

  • Contrarian P||

    I think the utter silence of the media on most of the issues at play does contrast with the Bush years, where everyone was jumping up and down about what an evil administration that was.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    when they criticize Obama he points out that 'their guy' did it to or originated the program

    an argument can be made that what Bush did was worse

    So look at my original post. I didn't say Obama started it, I said that liberals suddenly stopped caring in 2009. I also did not say Obama was "worse" than other Presidents, but that he was the least constrained when it came to following the law.

    But of course PB jumps directly to BOOOOOOSSSHHHHHH!!!! anyway, because that's all he knows.

  • ||

    No. The mendacious part is his constant assertion that libertarians are nothing more than republicans and that anyone here actually thought BOOOOOSH was a good president.

    Because pointing out that BOOOOOSH was a better president (in any way) than his Lord and Savior Obama, makes us all a bunch of water carrying republicans.

    Spin is another word for a lie.

    THAT is why this fucking pig is mendacious.

  • anon||

    What they don't realize is how pathetic it is that one can go lower than Bush.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Not true.

    I only call the Republicans here Republicans. I am sure I have never said that about you.

    But John, Mike M, and a few others are in fact Republicans.

  • John||

    No, you scream and throw shit and destroy every thread like the disgusting little fascist sockpuppet you are. Your whole point of being here is to lie and disrupt the conversation.

  • sgs||

    Yes, and then you imply everyone you haven't called a republican is also a republican, and think people are too stupid to notice.

  • ||

    "Palin's Buttplug

    I only call the Republicans here Republicans. I am sure I have never said that about you.

    But John, Mike M, and a few others are in fact Republicans."

    The lies of a troll; episode 4,579,392.

    You call people, including me ( which is laughable ), republicans just to get a rise out of them. The only reason you are here is because the true republican sites ban you. The freedom here is what allows you to vent your hatred of republicans. You just pretend we are republicans to keep from feeling completely impotent.

  • Ted S.||

    Because pointing out that BOOOOOSH was a better president (in any way)

    I'd replace "better" with "less bad", since the connotation is probably more accurate.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I think it depends on which violations of the NAP have particular valence for the person assessing. I tend to abhor military actions as the greatest governmental sin so I in fact find Bush worse than this administration. My issue is with someone who calls themselves libertarian and cannot find fault with this administration. It's quite terrible.

  • sgs||

    "I tend to abhor military actions as the greatest governmental sin so I in fact find Bush worse than this administration."

    So you're admitting you're an imbecile.

  • ||

    At least Bush got permission from congress for his fucked up military adventurism.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Is there any other kind?

  • Jordan||

    A program vigorously defended and continued by Obusha.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I don't think so, at least technically. The program Palin's B*ttplug is referencing was a warrantless wiretapping program, the current scandal seems to be over collection of 'metadata.'

    I don't like either, but there is a legal difference.

  • Jordan||

    No, it's not just metadata. E-mails, chats, and browsing history are stored and accessed without warrants.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Thanks for pointing this to me. I see it's being denied and seems a bit confusing, but yes, if this is going on it's a 'different ballgame.'

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    That is only what Snowden claims. Read the article and find it says this program is "capable of" or is "constructed such".

  • ||

    Actually, he continued the warrantless wiretapping too.

    http://www.aclu.org/blog/natio.....e-increase

  • General Butt Naked||

    Just type out "butt" and quit being a prissy fucking cunt, already.

    Shrike has been making the same goddamned BOOOSH! post for 5 years, or so. His clogging up threads with his disturbed, obsessed bullshit grows old really fucking fast. That's why everyone hates the feces stained, urine smelling son of a man and a whorish sheep.

  • amanda012||

    before I saw the paycheck that said $5576, I accept that my neighbour was like they say really erning money in their spare time at their laptop.. there friend brother started doing this less than eighteen months and resantly cleared the morgage on their villa and bourt themselves a Bugatti Veyron. we looked here... WWW.CNN13.COM

  • ||

    Didn't Obama just do the same damn thing?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    No. The FISA law of 2008 made the NSA program legal - retroactively I might add.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Correction - it was the Protect America Act of 2007.

    Foreign Agent Declaration Not Required

    No mention of foreign agent status is made in the Protect America Act of 2007. Under prior FISA rules, persons targeted for surveillance must have been declared as foreign agents before a FISA warrant would be accorded by the FISC court.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.....ct_of_2007

    (that made spying on any American legal)

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Protect America Act of 2007

    Another good example of my rule of thumb that a law's effect will be the opposite of its name.

  • Ted S.||

    I'd like to see the For Universal Caring and Kindness Act.

    (Actually, there should probably be three more words after "Kindness".)

  • anon||

    For Universal Caring and Kindness of Yourself and Other Ubiquitous inhabitants act.

  • ||

    "No. The FISA law of 2008 made the NSA program legal - retroactively I might add."

    Unless this has been amended via the proscribed process, it did no such thing;

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

  • ||

    Not the NSA info gathering you abject retard. The use of executive privilege to shield his administration from getting in trouble for breaking the goddamn law.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    ACLU: Obama has Quadrupled Warrantless Wiretaps

    After months of litigation and Freedom of Information Act requests, the ACLU obtained documents from the federal government proving that real-time monitoring of electronic communications inside the U.S. has climbed 60 percent since 2009 and far surpasses monitoring under President Bush.

    Come on, shrieky-boy. What else you got?

  • Sevo||

    "Come on, shrieky-boy. What else you got?"

    Maybe he'll tell us about how NY residents will get lower med insurance premiums (.001% of them)! Or how there are just gobs of companies trying to sell insurance through the exchanges!

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    That is a bit deceptive. The increase is not in what are commonly thought of as a 'wiretap' but in pen register and trap and trace programs which "refer to the surveillance of information about—rather than the contents of—communications".

    http://www.aclu.org/blog/natio.....e-increase

    To be clear, while I think there are potentially significant differences, I am offended by both.

  • sgs||

    "That is a bit deceptive."

    No it isn't, perhaps you're just stupid?

    "The increase is not in what are commonly thought of as a 'wiretap' but in pen register and trap and trace programs which "

    Which are simply subsets of wiretaps.

    What constituted a "wiretap" for purposes of this article was consistent.

    So what you (incorrectly) think about what is and is not considered a wiretap means exactly fuckall, since the point you were so busy missing was the comparison.

  • John||

    Pretty much. What was that famous Churchill quote about Democracy being the least bad form of government?

  • Live Free or Diet||

    "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

  • anon||

    Seriously, how did we get FDR, and the fucking brits get Winston Churchill?

  • robc||

    Better health care allowed Americans with polio to live?

  • anon||

    That's actually the best argument for Obamacare I've seen to date. Kill off the FDR's of tomorrow today!

  • Killazontherun||

    Pretty much. What was that famous Churchill quote about Democracy being the least bad form of government?

    A lie.

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    "A republic, if you can keep it."

  • MariaNatividad412||

    my roomate's step-mother makes $77 an hour on the internet. She has been laid off for 9 months but last month her pay was $16652 just working on the internet for a few hours. Go to this web site and read more... www.cnn13.com

  • anon||

    , but imagine where we would be ...

    So, right where we're at today?

  • LiberTarHeel||

    "In fact, the court blasted the city's claims that the soda ban had anything to do with science."

    The parallels to the MAIG philosophy are virtually infinite. Such imperious behavior should be rewarded by ferocious rebuke, yet the best we seem to be able to hope for is a whiny kind of temporary stemming of the tide.

  • John||

    Why do you hate the children Tar Heel?

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    Look on TarHeel and despair, for the terrorists have won...

  • John||

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....sband.html

    File this under dont stick it in crazy. She even looks hot in her mug shot.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Yeah, she's probably destined for whatever that site is that collects mugshots of good looking women.

    This comment was funny:

    She was probably still mad at him for wearing jeans to the wedding. - sleepymedusa
  • John||

    I think a lot of wives would be in jail for assault if their husbands showed up to their wedding in jeans.

  • anon||

    Makes no sense; at least they showed up.

    If I get married, she'll be lucky if I show up at the courthouse for the 5 minutes it takes to sign the papers.

  • From the Tundra||

    Funny comments. I liked this one in particular:

    If attacked by a woman use your head, be passive, protect your face and let her hit it as much as she likes, she will soon lose enthusiasm.

    Self defense tips from England.

  • John||

    That is true in America too. Try defending yourself and knocking the shot out of her and see who the cops believe was the aggressor.

  • KPres||

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Yeah. You can use the rope-a-dope and stay free or fight back and go to jail. It's also wise not to yell.

    In the midst of an alcohol-fueled descent, my ex went off on me a couple of times right before law school ended and I moved away. Both times the cops hauled off the 5'0" 98 pound woman rather than the 6'9" 300 pound guy. Both times I was told that if she had any injuries at all, they'd have taken me, despite her drunken rantings and threats. Good times.

  • anon||

    In the midst of an alcohol-fueled descent

    Yours or hers?

    I keed.

  • Killazontherun||

    I found a little subtle intimidation works best, and I don't mean in the domestic arena which is best handled by two adults talking it out like adults, but when someone is trying to screw with you in public. Two things, lower your voice the angrier you supposedly get while you make it look like you are trying to lure the person in an isolated area. Has gotten me the upper hand in several instances.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    My subtle intimidation usually involves standing up and stretching my arms and hands. At least it did.

    Now that my social milieu is a bit different, I don't remember the last time someone tried to screw with me in public. And, now that I carry, I wouldn't want to get mixed up in something that isn't an honest to Zod threat, anyway.

  • Killazontherun||

    When I ran a warehouse on the night shift I found myself having to scare away people who didn't belong there from time to time and doing so while trying to minimize force. Stopping operations, the loading and unloading of trucks at all hours, to answer to the cops would have costs a lot of money.

  • Killazontherun||

    would have costs

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    I'm not seeing the connection, but it's good that it worked for you.

  • Killazontherun||

    How long have you been around? This is Hit'n'Run, much like Lost, nothing connects until the last episode.

  • anon||

    When I ran a warehouse

    Read as "When I ran a whorehouse..."

    Oddly, it made a lot of sense both ways.

  • KPres||

  • anon||

    Gold digging whores are the wifebeaters of men.

  • ||

    I got to see him do that act live. Pure gold.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    They forgot the part about thinking of Mother England or Margaret Thatcher on a cold day or whatever.

  • SIV||

    That is about the hottest mugshot pic I've ever seen. It looks better than her TV news headshot

  • PS wanders the Wasteland||

    Dont marry crazy. Stick it in, using a pseudonym.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Will your DNA have a pseudonym?

  • anon||

    Meh, I'd still hit it.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Yeah, i would take a beating to sample that.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    When she's so worked up and aggressive, one would think it could be directed into...more constructive channels.

  • AlmightyJB||

    My thoughts exactly:)

  • anon||

    She looks very sexy in my imagination right now.

    I've determined the husband is a pussy for not throwing her on the floor and doing manly things with her.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I've determined the husband is a pussy for not throwing her on the floor and doing manly things with her.

    That's... dark.

  • ||

    Yeah, apparently I should have been watching more local news.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I'm not saying she's guilty, since she hasn't been convicted, but what does it take for the cops in a DV situation to arrest the woman rather than the man?

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    A woman without a scratch or welt on her and a man who does have them.

  • ||

    Hey! She's a local...

  • Anonymous Coward||

    I'd give her the D.

    But not my real name.

  • Killazontherun||

    I'm sure that there exist a balance of good qualities with the negative in her character. I bet she doesn't nag, just lets the fists do the talking. That's seem like a fair exchange.

  • Mike M.||

  • John||

    Hell no. They should put "Fuck You. That is Why" over the door to the Obama Library.

  • anon||

    Definitely going to do that after it's erected, should I live long enough.

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    Make sure and go faux-classical:

    F V C K.Y O V
    T H A T.I S.W H Y

  • Fatty Bolger||

    The documents will plead the fifth.

  • anon||

    Will this lawless administration obey the subpoena?

    I hope you're not holding your breath.

  • ||

    OT

    FOX News is just as pathetic as the rest of the media.

    Is This The Most Embarrassing Interview Fox News Has Ever Done?
    Reza Aslan, a religious scholar with a Ph.D. in the sociology of religions from the University of California and author of the new book Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, went on FoxNews.com’s online show Spirited Debate to promote his book only to be prodded about why a Muslim would write a historical book about Jesus.
  • KPres||

    Meh, that's pretty mild actually. She didn't even bring it up until the last 20 seconds or so.

  • anon||

    Conveniently left out are the parts where Aslan is neither a religious scholar nor a historian; his PHD is in Sociology.

  • anon||

    Oh, and he obtained his masters in Creative Writing, if I'm not mistaken.

  • ||

    Aslan holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in religions from Santa Clara University, a Master of Theological Studies degree from Harvard Divinity School, and a Master of Fine Arts degree from the University of Iowa's Writers' Workshop, where he was named the Truman Capote Fellow in Fiction. Aslan also received a Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology, focusing in the history of religion, from the University of California, Santa Barbara.[7][8][9] His dissertation was titled "Global Jihadism as a Transnational Social Movement: A Theoretical Framework".[10]

  • anon||

    Not sure I trust a locked wikipedia page with about 1 relevant citation. Googling now, just can't find much.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

  • anon||

    Global Jihadism as a Transnational Social Movement: A Theoretical Framework

    Heh, title of his dissertation.

    Dude sounds legit! /sic

  • ||

    So you have some reason to doubt his word?

    You provide an "if I'm not mistaken" citation and Wiki and his website are making it up?

  • anon||

    I'm just skeptical. It's an appeal to authority line of reasoning anyways.

  • Sevo||

    "Aslan holds a..."

    He should know then that there isn't a shred of evidence for an historical "Jesus".

  • ||

    My comment was NOT about the subject matter. It was about a media hit piece.

  • anon||

    I have 3 PHD's; prove me wrong!

    It's both irrelevant and conspicuous. I have no way to verify that what I heard on radio is fact just as I have no way to verify what Wikipedia presents is fact.

    I've learned to be highly skeptical of any wikipedia entry though; use it mostly as a kind of source aggregate.

  • ||

    I've learned to be highly skeptical of any wikipedia entry though

    I am skeptical of Wiki too.

    But in this case it agrees with his website and what he claims in the interview.

    You can disagree with him on the merits of his arguments, but unless you have some proof he isn't what he claims to be, discrediting him because you don't like what he has to say is simply an ad hom.

    No offense meant, just an observation.

  • anon||

    No offense taken, I just listened to the radio instead of researching myself.

    Quite honestly, I don't believe his book to be worth discussing, just because I don't care one way or the other. He's successfully trolled christians though.

  • Sevo||

    "My comment was NOT about the subject matter. It was about a media hit piece."

    And I did not presume it was; my comment regards his supposed 'scholarship'; writing about the 'life' of a fictional character.
    BTW, when Lewis writes about Muslim, Muslim idiots pull the same crap on him: He's not Muslim, he can't write on the subject.

  • Acosmist||

    Scare quotes. So Sevo went full retard. Good to note.

  • Ted S.||

    Why can't people who don't have a Ph.D. do scholarship?

  • ||

    It doesn't matter if his degree is in underwater basket weaving and he is a practicing satanist. The interviewer was implying that he should somehow be forbidden to write on that subject.

  • ||

    What do you mean? That was a complete hit piece. She had no intention of discussing his book or theories. All she wanted to do was voice outrage that a Muslim dared to write a book about Christ.

  • anon||

    Yeah, I don't get that part either. Why does anyone give a shit?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Because Fox News is the sewer of TV journalism.

    Interview an author for 10 minutes to question his vast credentials the whole time?

  • ||

    Shut up shreeeek. I don't want your help and I don't care to ever admit that I agree with you. Just fucking leave. No one likes or wants you here. You are a disgusting piece of pig shit.

  • sgs||

    That is the correct answer.

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug| 8.3.13 @ 11:38AM |#
    "Interview an author for 10 minutes to question his vast credentials the whole time?"

    Yeah, MSNBC would spend 25 minutes telling you why their ignoring stuff!

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    When your anti-Christian "scholarship" is too tendentious even for NPR, you may have a problem.

    "In an interview on NPR’s “Weekend Edition,” [Christianity-bashing author Reza] Aslan had another “cringeworthy” moment that even NPR felt pressed to correct on its website: “Our guest incorrectly says the first Gospel, the Gospel of Mark, contains no statement of messianic identity from Jesus. In fact, in Mark 14:62, Jesus responds affirmatively when asked if he is the son of God.”

    "NPR didn’t say “inadvertently.” Not “mistakenly.” The word they chose – “incorrectly” – speaks volumes. Aslan was pushing a falsehood."

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/b.....mainstream

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Like the White Witch* implied, I couldn't believe until I saw the check that you can get rich selling anti-Christian books to rubes.

    www.thisbetternotbearealaddress.com

    *Get it? Aslan and the White Witch?

  • ||

    That was terrible. I hope they give you the silver chair.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I don't get it but that's ok.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Characters in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe - Aslan the lion is the Christ figure, the White Witch is, well that should be obvious.

    http://bit.ly/1eiT8lx

  • Eduard van Haalen||

  • AlmightyJB||

    ok. I knew what the white witch reference was from but did not know the Asian reference. Saw the film years ago but don't recall much of any of it.

  • ||

    It's always funnier when you explain it.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Right?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    It must have been really forgettable if you don't recall Aslan. Were you watching it as a favor to someone else?

  • AlmightyJB||

    I was watching it with my wife. Was probably on my smartphone commenting here throughout the movie:) I don't have the best memories anyways. I recycle my brain cells often:)

    http://incolor.inetnebr.com/mj.....heory.HTML

  • Ted S.||

    the White Witch is, well that should be obvious.

    Hillary Clinton?

  • Irish||

    Eduard, I don't know what your point is. Resa Aslan is a sketchy son of a bitch. If Fox News had gone after his credentials or pointed out factual inaccuracies, this would all be relevant.

    That's not what they did. They implied that no Muslim should write a book about Jesus. That had nothing to do with Aslan being a dick. They can both be dicks.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I wasn't referring to the Fox News interview, but to the NPR interview. AFAIK, the NPR interviewer didn't hassle Aslan about his Muslimity.

  • Irish||

    Okay. Sorry. I thought you'd been involved in the initial conversation up above, but your first post wasn't until the NPR one. Never mind.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    This is interesting:

    "Correction Aug. 1, 2013

    "A previous correction explained the removal of a paragraph that related to Jesus' perception of himself."

    http://www.npr.org/2013/07/14/.....he-messiah

    They won't explain why they retracted their own (perfectly accurate) correction, but this may help explain:

    "Reza Aslan Hearts NPR

    "Author and religious scholar Reza Aslan is one of those people who's at NPR West so often that he blurs the line between guest and employee. We always joke with our regulars that they should have a punch card, and when it's full, they get their own cubicle."

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thisi.....hearts-npr

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Oh, the correction is *still* on NPR's Web site, I just didn't look hard enough:

    "ASLAN: ...The first Gospel - the Gospel of Mark, which was written in around 70 or 71 CE - is unusual in that there is actually no statement of messianic identity from Jesus in it. From the beginning of the Gospel to the end of the Gospel, at no point does Jesus ever actually say, I am the Messiah. On the contrary, he keeps denying it when other people claim the Messiah for him. [POST-BROADCAST CORRECTION: In fact, in Mark 14:62, Jesus responds affirmatively when asked if he is the son of God.]"

    http://m.npr.org/news/Books/200844275

    Just as a reminder (though I'm sure everyone at H&R knows this already), here is Mark 14:61-62:

    "...Again the high priest asked him and said to him: 'Are you the Messiah, the soneof the Blessed One?'

    "Then Jesus answered, 'I am;
    and 'you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power
    and coming with the clouds of heaven.'" (NAB)

    Before you flip out, I'm only quoting this to rebut what Aslan said about the contents of Mark.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    So the NPR folks felt obliged to rebut a claim by one of their best buddies. I appreciate their candor.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Is Bloomberg ever not a fascist dick?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    When he's sleeping?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Oh, I bet that's not true:) We're all his slaves in his dreams.

  • anon||

    It sleeps?

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    No rest for the wicked, I hear...

    A shame that he doesn't take a dirt nap.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Since I seem to be on a C. S. Lewis kick today, it's time again for his famous quote:

    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

    http://www.goodreads.com/quote.....r-the-good

  • AlmightyJB||

    on point. nothing scarier than a do gooder.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The quote is an oldie but a goodie here at H&R.

  • AlmightyJB||

    And they can always find enough sheeple to agree with them because no one thinks through the implications of allowing the government that much power.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    This is quite an excellent quote, but I have to wonder if Lewis opposed the socially conservative laws that existed in his society.

  • Irish||

    This is quite an excellent quote, but I have to wonder if Lewis opposed the socially conservative laws that existed in his society.
    “I believe in political equality. But there are two opposite reasons for being a democrat. You may think all men so good that they deserve a share in the government of the commonwealth, and so wise that the commonwealth needs their advice. That is, in my opinion, the false, romantic doctrine of democracy. On the other hand, you may believe fallen men to be so wicked that not one of them can be trusted with any irresponsible power over his fellows.
    That I believe to be the true ground of democracy. I do not believe that God created an egalitarian world. I believe the authority of parent over child, husband over wife, learned over simple to have been as much a part of the original plan as the authority of man over beast. I believe that if we had not fallen...patriarchal monarchy would be the sole lawful government. But since we have learned sin, we have found, as Lord Acton says, that 'all power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' The only remedy has been to take away the powers and substitute a legal fiction of equality."
  • Irish||

    I believe in political equality. But there are two opposite reasons for being a democrat. You may think all men so good that they deserve a share in the government of the commonwealth, and so wise that the commonwealth needs their advice. That is, in my opinion, the false, romantic doctrine of democracy. On the other hand, you may believe fallen men to be so wicked that not one of them can be trusted with any irresponsible power over his fellows.
    That I believe to be the true ground of democracy. I do not believe that God created an egalitarian world. I believe the authority of parent over child, husband over wife, learned over simple to have been as much a part of the original plan as the authority of man over beast. I believe that if we had not fallen...patriarchal monarchy would be the sole lawful government. But since we have learned sin, we have found, as Lord Acton says, that 'all power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' The only remedy has been to take away the powers and substitute a legal fiction of equality. The authority of father and husband has been rightly abolished on the legal plane, not because this authority is in itself bad (on the contrary, it is, I hold, divine in origin), but because fathers and husbands are bad.
  • Irish||

    Theocracy has been rightly abolished not because it is bad that learned priests should govern ignorant laymen, but because priests are wicked men like the rest of us. Even the authority of man over beast has had to be interfered with because it is constantly abused.

    - C.S. Lewis

    I don't agree with the part about 'pre-fallen man' because I'm not religious. I also disagree with the patriarchal aspects of the first section. However, I think that this is a pretty good political argument, and seems to me to say that he doesn't believe in the politically conservative views as much as you might think.

    He even quotes Lord Acton who was a hero of Hayek's.

  • Irish||

    Wow. I accidentally double posted the first part of that. Oops.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    He also wrote a dystopian novel worthy of comparison with Orwell's or Huxley's:

    "In C. S. Lewis’ novel [That Hideous Strength], the technological super–agency is the National Institute of Coordinated Experiments (NICE), which is empowered to solve all sorts of social and genetic problems without being bothered by "red tape."...

    "The NICE turns out to be demonic in inspiration, and intends to impose upon England a regime of ruthless social engineering that Joseph Stalin would have admired."

    http://www.firstthings.com/art.....th-1945-38

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Thanks to both of you for the selections.

    I think England at the time criminalized quite a bit of things on 'socially conservative' grounds-things like pornography, homosexuality, and the like. Before I would give Lewis too much credit (from a libertarian perspective, in other areas he strikes me as quite intelligent and respectable) I would have to know what he thought and did about those.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Your selections spurred me to do a bit of searching, and it seems like I must give Lewis quite a bit of credit on these matters. This First Things article, if it is to be believed as correctly representing his views, states the following considering Lewis' position on morals legislation of his day:

    "The law must concern itself with injustice, not with forms of sexual wrong-doing that, however wrong, are not unjust.

    Lewis likewise recommends abandoning censorship of literary works on moral grounds because attempts censor such literature inevitably lead to arguments more dangerous than obscene literature itself. In attempting to distinguish good literature from trash we presume that good literature cannot be evil, that it lacks the power to corrupt, or we may assume that, even if it is corrupting, the claims of art matter more than the claims of morality. Both of these assumptions seem doubtful to Lewis and he prefers abandoning censorship to holding our moral judgments hostage to the taste of literary experts."

    http://www.discovery.org/a/524

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    If it wasn't for H&R, you wouldn't know about First Things, and I wouldn't know about Jezebel. Which of us got the better end of the deal?

  • Bruce Majors||

    Bloomberg is moving on to a new issue. Since obesity, poor grades, dropping out of school, traffic accidents, and a variety of other ills are due to lack of sleep, NYC is now imposing mandatory bed times.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    NYC is now imposing mandatory bed times.

    Criminy-crud! I had to Google-News that to be sure you're kidding!

  • anon||

    NYC is now imposing mandatory bed times.

    I imagine that's going to go over well in the "city that never sleeps."

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    You need to be in bed 10 hours before your next shift of work starts.
    That way you get 8 hours, plus 2 hours for a healthy breakfast and gym workout.

  • anon||

    Sure is going to make cocaine-fueled binge drinking nights a bit harder the next day.

  • AlmightyJB||

    There hard enough as it is. Not that I would know anything about that:)

  • AlmightyJB||

    A rested citizen is a productive citizen. A productive citizen is a happy citizen. /calm voice over ubiquitous loudspeakers every evening not far into the future.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Chickenshit cocksuckers

    A new Arizona court ruling says police can take temporary custody of a person's gun for officer-safety reasons even if the person's contact with police was voluntary.

    Our nation's bravest and most noble public servants, pissing their pants at the thought of an armed citizen who poses no threat to them.

    In the comments, somebody says if they run the serial number, it goes on the "crime gun" list.

  • anon||

    A citizen with a gun? He might shoot back. Can't have that.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    In a world where "officer safety is paramount," the rights of the citizens is secondary.

  • db||

    This is police SOP in Pennsylvania. There are a huge number of people who carry here regularly. I'd like to see someone challenge it in court but that would require saying "no" to an officer who wants to disarm you and then surviving the rest of the encounter.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Lean forward; we're coming in the back door.

    The issue of gun ownership and insurance coverage has taken out increasing importance in recent months as a growing number of state legislators, frustrated by the lack of progress in Washington on enacting even the most rudimentary form of gun control, are attempting to force consumers who own guns to purchase liability insurance – much in the way car owners are required to buy coverage before they can legally drive their autos.

    The hope by many people who are introducing and supporting such legislation is that new regulation in this area will do a great deal. They're hoping it will force the costs of gun carnage on those who actually own firearms. It may even, perhaps, making it cost prohibitive for middle-class homeowners – like, say, Nancy Lanza, the mother of Newtown shooter Adam Lanza – to keep firearms, or at least give them a monetary incentive to store them securely.

    -----

    So here's hoping the states can begin passing insurance mandates for gun owners. Given how little luck gun control advocates have had in Washington, it seems like it is the most effective way of reducing gun ownership in the United States currently on offer.

    Don't be paranoid. NOBODY WANTS TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY.

  • anon||

    Fortunately, there's no way to check to make sure someone has insurance on an unregistered firearm.

    Which I'm sure they'll "fix" too.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Should there be a set-off from the damage which might otherwise have been done by criminals deterred/killed by firearms?

  • ||

    Force criminals to buy insurance.

  • Redmanfms||

    HazelMeade is totally on board with this.

  • John||

    People just wouldn't buy it. It is like background checks, another way of making gun owners criminals.

  • Irish||

    American diplomat speeding down Kenyan road crosses the median and kills a father of three. A six month pregnant woman is left alone and penniless. The State Department then rushed the diplomat out of the country, leaving no financial assistance for the wife or for any of the other people injured in the crash.

    They claim they're 'fully cooperating' with the Kenyan authorities, which in this context means 'we're going to send this diplomat to another consulate and pretend this never happened.'

    It's a good thing the diplomat isn't a Catholic priest, or else we'd get all kinds of media stories about how horrible it is that those mean old Catholics shield their employees from justice.

  • anon||

    Only way you'd hear shit about this is if it happened to be a republican.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The difference is that Catholic priests can't get away with claiming immunity for civil-court jurisdiction. Diplomats can.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    *from* civil-court jurisdiction.

  • ||

    DEEPLOMATIC EEMMUNITY!

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    ISWYDT

  • Anonymous Coward||

    The United States is committed to justice.

    Just not for brown foreigners killed by the Patricians.

  • Killazontherun||

    Kenyan, so, not brown.

  • anon||

    Racist.

  • Killazontherun||

    I do my part, but the rest of you, except American, God rests his soul, are a little slack.

  • Killazontherun||

    What is it with me and 's's today? It's a fight to the death, and I'm afraid I'm losing.

  • ||

    I'm sure some diplomat in the Bush administration ran over a father of four once, so this is no big deal. In any case, what difference, at this point, does it make?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    They claim they're 'fully cooperating' with the Kenyan authorities, which in this context means 'we're going to send this diplomat to another consulate and pretend this never happened.'

    "The policemen come, we shrug our shoulders and say, 'He don't work here no more' and they go away. We have given our full cooperation."

  • anon||

    All governments are lying cocksuckers.

    I always liked Bill Hicks.

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    Once we're all subsisting on nutrient pellets, this 'soda' will be a thing of the past.

  • Ken Shultz||

    First they came for the soda, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a fat slob.

    ...

  • Ken Shultz||

    Sometimes, I think it's just a way for them to get into the headlines. Bloomberg likes being in the headlines. He didn't run for office for the money, that's for sure. He wasn't famous enough, and he wanted more fame. Now he just does and says shit to get into the headlines.

    LearJet Lizzy, the Limousine Liberal, does the same thing. It's about saying the most outrageous things they can can--and still be taken seriously by the media...

    Have you heard her latest? Liz Warren's new pet issue is to make the FDA stop discriminating against gay blood donors. Here I thought she was gonna rage against the machine, fight for the poor deadbeat homeowners and all that. Turns out she just wants to be in the headlines.

    Either that, or she wants to fill lots of Christians with gaymeglobin.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    D.C. really is Hollywood for ugly people. Like actors, politicians crave attention and praise. Also like actors, they hate correction or criticism. It's why they're so eager to get their faces on the TV and their names in the papers, despite the demonstrably false and embarrasingly stupid remarks they often make. It's also why they surround themselves with sycophants and flatterers, to bolster their fragile little egos.

  • John||

    Why would Warren even want to be Senator? She has to know her goof ball ideas will never get passed. She is not in it to accomplish anything. She is in it to say she is a Senator and have her ass kissed and her name on TV. That is it.

  • Ken Shultz||

    She thinks she can be president.

    How does she get to be president by forcing the FDA to stop discriminating against gay blood donors?

    It's just about being seen as the at the forefront on Democrat issues. She's never going to win the nomination outright the first time, but she'll position herself as vice presidential contender.

    ...so it's only Democrat activists who choose the Democrat nominee that she needs to impress now. Even if she did have to worry about losing her Senate seat, that won't be for years.

    So, now she can make hay while the sun shines--and who knows? If Barack Obama can get to president--despite his awful policy positions--then anything can happen.

  • John||

    Hard to imagine a candidate more dislikable and with less charisma and appeal than Hillary. Lizzy however is that.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, as bad as Hillary was, Lizzy the LearJet Liberal is even worse on the issues.

    When Obama made that "You didn't build that" speech, he was basically quoting Liz Warren.

    From a libertarian perspective, she's the Anti-Christ. She makes Barack Obama look like a moderate.

    She is to capitalism as Baptist preachers are to gay rights.

  • Atanarjuat||

    When Obama made that "You didn't build that" speech, he was basically quoting Liz Warren.

    And Liz Warren was quoting James Taggart.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Not purposely, but you make any speech against capitalism and you're gonna end up sounding like that...

    This was Liz Warren's standard fundraising speech at the time:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htX2usfqMEs

    Click into the 0:50 mark. Obama sat there at different fund raisers and listened Lizzy the Limousine Liberal make that speech numerous times, I'm sure. Obama speaking off the cuff, that time, which often gets him into trouble.

    Obama kisses Warren every chance he gets. Watch the end of the speech:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uro_63X_7f0

  • anon||

    Psh, did you see her college era photos?

    I'd have hit it.

  • John||

    Lizzy has no ideas that even her own party would sign off on much less that you could build a bipartisan coalition necessary to pass them. Her entire political career is nothing but performance art. Lets see if we can have the world's dumbest and most extreme progtard in the Senate.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Lets see if we can have the world's dumbest and most extreme progtard in the Senate."

    She's gunning for the presidency.

    And she already has the money raising machine in place to do it--most of the money for her Senate run came from Hollywood. No other Senator on the other side of the country raises money like that for a Senate race.

    And she'll have the media behind her, too.

  • Irish||

    She's gunning for the presidency.

    HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA! Liz Warren is the Rick Santorum of the left. She'll get 7% of the primary vote because of hard core extremists but will never even sniff the presidency.

  • anon||

    I truly hope we're all so lucky.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Like I said up top, she'll probably have to be vice president first. And a vice president like that is often the presumptive nominee. ...unless you look like Joe Biden.

    Let me put it this way, I think she has a better chance of being vice-president than Hillary did of winning the nomination when Bill Clinton left office.

    And Hillary came within a hair of winning the nomination outright.

  • buddhastalin||

    Clinton/Warren 2016? *shudder*

  • Ken Shultz||

    It's important to remember that just because someone getting into the presidency would be the worst thing that could happen--that doesn't mean it can't happen.

    And I know it looks like Hillary Clinton is going to win the nomination from the polls right now, but if you take a close look at Hillary Clinton? She LOOKS really, really old.

    She looks like Joe Biden right now.

    I think her day is passed, and I think it's her looks alone that may do her in. I almost hope she wins the nomination. You put her on a stage in contrast to any of the likely Republican nominees, and she's gonna look like their grandmother. Compared to them, she's gonna look worse than Richard Nixon did on TV against JFK.

  • PapayaSF||

    Let's hope that's true. Breitbart.com uncovered, but it never got much other press, that she barely got her Phd because one reviewer felt her thesis was basically academic fraud. She's a self-promoting bullshitter from way back, but my lefty Facebook friends think she's the bee's knees.

  • Ken Shultz||

    She's made of Teflon. Even if the PhD story is true, that wouldn't be the worst thing she's done.

    Let's see--she put together a real estate deal funded courtesy of embezzled money from the taxpayers, meant to bail out the widows and orphans who lost their money in Madison Guaranty. And the only partners in that deal who didn't go to jail? Were Bill and Hillary Clinton. ...even the sitting governor of Arkansas went to prison over that one!

    She mysteriously "found" FBI files on the Clinton's political enemies--they just materialized in her desk! She has no idea how they got there, but it had nothing to do with using the FBI to investigate the Clinton's political enemies--she's sure about that.

    She made a small fortune betting on commodities futures, which was really just a bribe in disguise. Yeah, she claims she bet their life savings on one futures bet becasue of something she read in the WSJ! But somebody placed a bet for her both ways, and only put her name on the one that won.

    She's a crook.

    In addition to everything else, she's a crook.

  • PapayaSF||

    Oops, I was talking about Warren. You are right about Hilary, though.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    It's when they lie about the small things, like always being a Yankee fan or being named after someone her mother couldn't possibly have heard of, that makes me nervous.

  • Bam!||

    "Lizzy the LearJet Liberal" sounds like a JayJay The Jet Plane character.

  • Killazontherun||

    In the words of the broadcaster, a female officer shoots a homeless man for calling her a bitch 'raises questions.'

    http://losangeles.cbslocal.com.....eless-man/

    While you are asking questions, maybe you should be asking who this officer is? I don't see you shielding the names of people who commit murder who are not LEO.

  • Irish||

    Boudreaux • 2 minutes ago −
    Here's an idea. When you get rowdy and the cops show up, you say "yes ma'am," and "no ma'am," and you do what the lady says.

    Good lord.

  • John||

    Imagine if the media got on cop abuse the way the did Priest sex abuse. They could stop this kind of shit in a year. Do some real good. Instead, they just boot lick and make excuses and cover it up. They just fucking can't help themselves. They love power too much.

  • Killazontherun||

    It's a good question. The criteria for selecting what to have a moral campaign against seems to be 'what can we do that creates the least social value.'

  • John||

    In the grand scheme of things, how many kids got molested by Priests? And what did priests do that little league coaches and teachers and babysitters and creepy b/fs had also been doing forever?

    I get that it was a scandal and fuck the church for covering it up. But it was hardly the biggest injustice going on.

  • Virginian||

    I bet you the single most common profession for child molesters is public school teacher.

  • anon||

    2 caught at the same school in my area within the past year.

  • John||

    The most common position is boy friend. The biggest thing you can do to keep your kid from being molested is not get divorced. Even the worst pedophiles rarely molest their biological kids. Where kids get molested is when their parents get divorced and mom starts being home a parade of strange men. Kids are almost always molested by someone they know and someone not related to them and that is usually uncles by marriage and b/fs or step parents.

    But that fact doesn't really fit the narrative of divorce being the greatest most empowering thing ever. So it doesn't get talked about.

  • Irish||

    But that fact doesn't really fit the narrative of divorce being the greatest most empowering thing ever. So it doesn't get talked about.

    I don't believe that narrative exists.

  • John||

    Irish,

    It does in feminists circles. Go over the Jezebel and start saying women should stay married for the benefit of their children and see how long before you are banned.

  • Irish||

    Hardcore feminists are crazy. Within most of society the things that left-wing feminists believe are very fringe.

    You can find crazies that believe anything. That doesn't change the fact that there aren't many people who would ever claim divorce is 'empowering.'

  • anon||

    people claiming divorce is empowering

    The amount of stupid required to actually believe this made my head swim a little bit. I literally cannot comprehend it.

  • Killazontherun||

    Divorce is terrible, even when you feel relieved.

  • John||

    Irish,

    But rarely does the media play up the harms that divorce has on children. And whenever they do, there is outrage among feminists for trying to limit the freedom of women.

  • anon||

    To be fair John, everyone with half a brain knows how bad divorce is for children.

  • Irish||

    ^^ This I might agree with. The problem with modern feminism has always been the fact that the driving force behind it is broken women not wanting to take responsibility. It's the Marcotte syndrome.

    "You mean I need to make sacrifices for children I've chosen to have? WHY DON'T YOU JUST CHAIN ME TO THE DISHWASHER, PATRIARCH!"

  • Nando||

    Divorce empowerment discussion forum

  • anon||

    "You mean I need to make sacrifices for children I've chosen to have? WHY DON'T YOU JUST CHAIN ME TO THE DISHWASHER, PATRIARCH!"

    "Dishwasher? But dear, why would I chain you to yourself?"

  • Fatty Bolger||

    there aren't many people who would ever claim divorce is 'empowering.'

    Granted it's tapered off a bit in recent years, but yes, that was once a major theme in mainstream feminism, and is still going pretty strong. Just do a google search if you don't believe it.

  • Killazontherun||

    Here is the other thing, it was originally fueled by an anti-homosexual agenda. The mainstream media was a decade behind the reporting on it from conservative catholic media, like First Things where they explicitly complained about homosexual relations between priests and young men.

  • John||

    And most of it was about homosexuality. Most of the abuse was homosexual priest and teenage boys. Very few pre adolescent boys were molested. It was mostly young teenagers and gay priests. Another fact that doesn't fit the narrative.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -Imagine if the media got on cop abuse the way the did Priest sex abuse.

    That is an amazing point. Not only is it 'spot on' but of course given that in theory the police work for us, the citizens, it is much more relevant for us to be aware of their abuses.

  • Atanarjuat||

    Not to mention there are orders of magnitude more cops in America, and as a result orders of magnitude more victims of cop abuse than priestly abuse.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I couldn't really make out shit from that video. That woman reporter had a nice rack. Would a little makeup hurt though? Did she just get out of bed or something?

  • Anonymous Coward||

    A sample of morons:

    bobclaville
    Anyone happen to notice how most of the negative remarks here, were from known, past lawbreakers who hate cops, and any laws they don't happen to like?
    Sounds like Washington DC's West Coast Mirror city. CRIME INCORPORATED.

    Only reprobates and career criminals could object to a bum being summarily executed for contempt of cop.

    Boudreaux

    She apparently gave him time to say, "What are you gonna do, b___h?" He had a choice. He chose...poorly.

    Contempt of cop, failure to sufficiently respect authoritah = summary execution.

    Respect mai authoritah!

  • Killazontherun||

    You know that Twilight Zone episode where the bigot wakes up in the body of a black man about to be lynched? These people are the 2013 version of that scum.

  • Atanarjuat||

    Well, there was that white-Hispanic fellow charged with murder, whose name the press tastefully declined to mention.

  • Slammer||

  • AlmightyJB||

    Dude was married to I Dream of Jeannie? That's a good gig right there. I bet she brought those outfits home. I bet she sometimes did the sister outfit and wig (Jeannie II) to mix it up. Yep. That happened. A young mans dream right there.

  • John||

    Barbara Eden was about the best looking woman running around in the late 1960s. The man lived a hell of a life for that alone.

  • anon||

    It's pretty amazing he didn't die from a heart attack from all the fucking at a much earlier age.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    You're alright JB.

  • ||

    Out! We need no urging to hate Humans. But for the present, only a fool fights in a burning house. Out!

  • AlmightyJB||

    "I mean, you can take a machine gun to deer hunting"

    http://news.yahoo.com/leahy-bl.....itics.html

    DERP

  • John||

    I don't recall anyone advocating for legalized fully automatic weapons. They really do hang on to their myths don't they?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Yeah, whens the last time anyone went deer hunting with a machine gun. Lying is the only argument they have. Unfortunately there are enough stupid people that believe that shit. That's whats so sad and infuriating. In an intelligent society, this guy would be picking up dog shit, not passing legislation.

  • John||

    It is not so much that I disagree with them, thought I do, it is that they can't even make an intelligent point one way or another. Everything they say is either an outright falsehood or completely irrational or both.

  • General Butt Naked||

    To be fair, Leahy is from Vermont. It probably is legal to hunt deer with an automatic weapon there.

  • anon||

    I thought Leahy was canadian.

  • anon||

    Nevermind, that's Lahey.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    No, that's Lajoie

  • AlmightyJB||

    Even if tgat were true an m16 would probably not be legal because its only 223. Not that any if that matters. The reason they're pissed at the Bloomburg ads is because they don't want anyone knowing their true agenda.

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    I have to confess that allowing machine guns would be about the only way to interest me in deer hunting...

    Actually, I just wish that I could set up a machine gun nest for those fuckers that get at my saplings.

  • Killazontherun||

    They are legal if you jump through the right hoops. I know a few legal owners and even had the fun time of shooting off some rounds a few months back. Here's the thing leftist don't understand. A fully automatic gun is not a practical weapon for the needs of the vast majority of gun owners so most of us don't even want to possess one.

  • ||

    Even most of the military physically limits their M-16s to three round bursts in full auto. Just not a real effective way to disperse death.

  • John||

    They figured that out pretty quickly. The irony was they got rid of the M14 because no one could fire it accurately on full automatic only to limit the M16 to three round bursts. Would have been better off keeping the M16 and limiting it to three round bursts.

  • anon||

    I dunno; being on the opposite end of any gun being fired full auto would be enough for me to shit myself at the very least.

  • theamishcountry||

    I do.

    The NFA is a terrible law.

  • db||

    I do.

  • Nando||

    If you don't need it for hunting, then why would anyone need a semi-automatic rifle?

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    People around the world kill large predators with spears.

    How can you honestly claim that you need a gun?

  • anon||

    People have had babies for thousands of years without hospitals.

    How can you honestly claim you need a hospital?

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    In fact, I have been informed by my Grievance Studies group that the concept of necessity is Euro-ethno-phallocentric (like guns), and whatever semantic content or socioeconomic substructure it provided for ancient and modern symbology is dead in the post-modern world

    Oh, wait... That is logical necessity. Nevermind.

  • anon||

    Grievance Studies group

    It enrages me that this probably exists.

  • John||

    They have bow season don't they?

  • Ted S.||

    Do you know how hard it is to kill anything by taking a bow? ;-)

  • AlmightyJB||

    Not according to the Outdoor channel bow hunting shows on Sunday.

  • Ted S.||

    Do they have curtsey hunting shows, too?

  • ||

    This Bow isn't killer either.

  • anon||

    the Like:Dislike ratio suggests otherwise.

  • Ted S.||

    What about this Bow?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Was that baby eating a doughnut? Why isn't Bloomberg raising hell?

  • John||

    http://www.roadandtrack.com/ca.....ide-review

    Electric motorcycle. The idea of the instant torque of an electric motor is very intriguing. But the drawbacks in range and having to recharge the thing are significant. And at this point, only really daring and great riders can even approach the full capability of a good sport bike. What good does the extra performance do you if you have neither the courage or the skill to use it? And I am sure this thing is also wildly expensive compared to a gas powered bike. So I don't see the point in owning one.

  • anon||

    . Operating range is around 140 miles highway (Mission calls it "real world") or 230 miles in the city.

    That's pretty average for motorcycles, except it doesn't take 2 hours to refill a fuel tank.

    I'd probably buy an electric motorcycle to drive to/from work if it didn't cost $60k. Electric motorcycles are far more feasible than electric cars (which will not happen still for quite some time, at least not with acceptable ranges).

  • John||

    I would at least consider an electric motorcycle. I think they would be best as trail bikes. Imagine being able to wiz through the woods without making any sound? But the problem also is that motorcycles already get insane gas millage. Even a top end sport bike that is the equivalent of owning a Ferrari 599 still gets over 30 mph in the city. So what is the advantage of going electric? You won't save much gas.

  • anon||

    So what is the advantage of going electric?

    Quite honestly? I hate stopping at gas stations while on a motorcycle.

    And yes, I don't think I've ever gotten less than 35mpg, and that was an 1100cc bike.

  • John||

    My bike has a range of about 172 miles. I am ready to get off it for a few minutes by the then. So i don't mind stopping for gas.

  • anon||

    On that I'll agree with; I just hate having to take my gloves off, take my helmet off, fill it with gas, get my wallet out, then put everything back on. Purely personal preference on that bit.

  • anon||

    Oh, also, riding for an hour or two listening to your exhaust can get obnoxious after a while. It's fun for the first 30 minutes but quickly just becomes loud.

  • John||

    Like I said, in nature on a trail bike, an electric would be really cool. But on the road, unless you just have insanely loud pipes, I don't at least notice the noise.

  • anon||

    Yeah, probably just my last bike that made me bring that up. God those fucking pipes were obnoxious.

  • Ted S.||

    As somebody who hikes on trails also used by mountain bikers I much prefer meeting up with them if we're going in opposite directions because it's easier to see them coming than if they're coming from behind and I have to swivel my head around to figure out which of the trails the bikers are on.

    Thankfully if there's a group of bikers there's often enough talking back and forth as well.

  • anon||

    On the downside, you couldn't even think about traveling more than your battery range on an electric bike, unless you really love waiting 2 hours for a full charge plus finding a 220v supply.

  • Killazontherun||

    It’ll keep running all they way to a top speed of 150 mph.

    I'm definitely not going to speed past sixty five on a motorcycle. My biggest enemy in high school died a few years after graduation when he wrecked his bike after speeding. They had to unwrap his remains from a splintered telephone pole.

  • ||

    The extra performance comes in to play across a whole range of speeds, terrains, road obstacles, weather conditions, etc., not just when you're pushing the envelope. Any modern sport bike is just plain easier to ride than a sport bike from 20 years ago.

    That said, I'll keep my piston engine bikes.

  • John||

    Oh God yes. My bike is nearly ten years old and frankly I would have to be a real moron or not paying any attention to drop it. But the bikes I rode as a kid back in the 1980s would drop you on the asphalt if you looked crossways at them. Bikes are so much safer today. The biggest thing is ABS breaks. The days of panicking and locking your rear break tipping the bike over are gone.

  • ||

    Don't forget that you're also a more experienced rider now, and less likely to stab that brake in the parking lot. I have a 17-year-old bike that has never once been tipped over. I think I dropped every previous bike I've owned multiple times.

    In my unhumble opinion, the best performance enhancement over the last few decades has been weight reduction. Modern bikes (sport bikes anyway) are easier to accelerate, stop, turn, and roll around the garage. They get better fuel mileage and wear their tires less. Their suspensions can do a better job. Less weight means less dive during braking, which means more stability. A light weight bike is just a joy.

  • John||

    My bike is heavy by sport bike standards. It is around 450 I think. But it is a BMW so it has shaft drive, a boxter engine that is amazingly smooth and pretty much the best breaks in the world. It really is a joy to ride. So smooth and incredibly versatile and comfortable. Runs better today than the day I bought it.

  • anon||

    If you think it's good now, just wait 10-20 years. There are so many new amazing materials being discovered on a (what feels like, at least) daily basis...

    It's quite sad how excited I am about new materials and the impact they'll have on quite literally everything you interact with.

  • ||

    Nothing wrong with being excited about that!

  • db||

    "Instant torque" + "motorcycle" = "180° wheelie."

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Christopher Hitchens defends the prolife, antiabortion position on materialist grounds:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....e=youtu.be

  • funlol||

    I've got one thing to say Bloomberg. "TA HA HA HA! TA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!" Face it Bloomberg - YOU LOST! Your not taking our Big Gulp sodas away! Just like your not taking our legal firearms and high capacity magazines away! Can we get our designated cigarette smoking areas in the workplace, bars, clubs, restaurants, diners, theaters, movies, sporting events, beaches and parks back? As well as get rid of the cigarette taxes and bike lanes?

    Get used to losing Bloomberg because it is going to happen a lot more often! With any luck the next mayor will undo all the damage you've done!

    - James from NYC Personal Trainers

  • LifeStrategies||

    Why should the taxpayer have to pay for such a ridiculous waste of time and money? Can Bloomberg personally be made to pay for all the legal costs?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement