U.S. Mulls Arming Syrian Rebels, Employers Cutting Benefits Ahead of Obamacare, Rhode Island Recognizes Gay Marriage: P.M. Links

  • mulling it overDepartment of DefenseDefense Secretary Chuck Hagel says the U.S. is again considering arming Syrian rebels.
  • Kansas is among several states that have passed or are trying to pass laws nullifying federal gun regulations in their jurisdictions.
  • Employers are cutting employee benefits costs ahead of Obamacare's implementation.
  • The U.S. wants North Korea to release an American sentenced to 14 years in a prison camp for an unspecified crime against the state.
  • Rhode Island becomes the tenth state to recognize gay marriage.
  • A police chief in Maryland is alleged to have a political enemies list.
  • Warren Buffett joins Twitter. 

Follow Reason 24/7 on Twitter!

Follow Reason on Twitter too, and like us on Facebook. You can also get the top stories mailed to you—sign up here.

Have a news tip? Send it to us!

The updated Reason app for Apple and Android now includes Reason 24/7!

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.

  • Irish||

    All is right with the world.

  • CE||

    Why stop at just trying to nullify federal laws that go to far in violating basic human rights like armed self defense?

    Leave the union and save your state's citizens the exorbitant income taxes the US government steals from them.

  • prolefeed||

    Leave the union and save your state's citizens the exorbitant income taxes the US government steals from them.

    Unfortunately, that would more likely boil down to "Try to leave the union and get invaded by the feds and have martial law imposed until a more pliable puppet state government is imposed."

  • ant1sthenes||

    Well, assuming you did so in an orderly and nonviolent fashion, and made sure you had a state-run propaganda corp up and ready to document America's atrocities for a global audience (outside of America, there are any number of people who would broadcast that shit far and wide), you could potentially cripple Washington in terms of public support in America, which would prompt more states to leave, and possibly provoke civil unrest in purple areas.

    In the end, though, peace and reunion isn't an option this time. Socialism is an ideological virus, and the former blue states will have to be quarantined until it dies out or a vaccine is discovered.

  • Matrix||

    Holder says Kansas' new law is unconstitutional
    It's unconstitutional for a state to arrest federal agents for enforcing an unconstitutional federal law. Got it!

  • AuH20||

    Seriously, one of these days, I want some governor to grow balls and say, "Any federal agent who attempts to kidnap and unlawfully imprison one of our citizens will be arrested."

    I though weed would be the test case, but no way Hickenlooper or whoever controls WA will have the balls.

  • Agammamon||

    I would just like one of them to say that the will not cooperate with the DEA anymore.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    Yeah, I've been waiting for this for a while. Jerry Brown preventing a raid on a medical marijuana facility seems like the most likely test case, by which I mean it doesn't seem likely at all.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Moonbeam will never do it, he loves the taste of boot leather too much. Not to mention, he wouldn't dare defy the authority of the winner of the Nobel Prize for teleprompter reading.

    -jcr

  • CE||

    Texas almost did it with the TSA, but then chickened out.

  • prolefeed||

    Hickenlooper is the chief asshat from CO, not the chief asshat from WA.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Yo, fuck that. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional. In fact, I'm issuing a warrant for a citizen's arrest of the entire federal government.

  • cavalier973||

    Based on your warrant, I've captured and tied up four DEA agents, 2 FBI agents, and one CIA guy who keeps saying he's "just a civilian". Yeah, like I'm going to fall for that one again.

  • CE||

    They're showing the air pipe of your bunker on CNN.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    That's why mine doesn't have one.

    Take that, ha-ha!

  • mr simple||

    “In purporting to override federal law and to criminalize the official acts of federal officers, [the law] directly conflicts with federal law and is therefore unconstitutional,” Mr. Holder wrote

    So Mr. Holder thinks whatever law the federal government enacts is de facto constitutional? Maybe he should read it before he talks about it. Unheard of for a TEAM member, I know.

  • Tony||

    It's considered constitutional until a court says otherwise. You think they're going to pass something they believe to be unconstitutional?

    The supremacy clause remains pretty clear, however.

  • Calidissident||

    The supremacy clause only applies to federal laws that are in pursuance of the constitution. Citing the Supremacy Clause in this situation is begging the question.

  • Pro Libertate||

    That's correct. The federal government's authority begins and ends with the Constitution. If something is unconstitutional--especially facially so--supremacy is out the window.

    Of course, this gets tricky if the courts back the other two branches, but this issue isn't one that I'm sure the executive can assume that on.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Except it's not since the supremacy clause itself unbegs the question because it addresses that specific argument. All state judges are bound by the laws authorized by the federal government, even if the Constitution or their state's laws say otherwise.

    The states don't get any input on when the federal government is violating the constitution or not.

  • ||

    You are misreading, I think.

    constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding

    It says "constitution", not "Constitution" -- i.e., notwithstanding the constitution [of any state] or laws of any state.

  • Calidissident||

    "Except it's not since the supremacy clause itself unbegs the question because it addresses that specific argument"

    What are you talking about? No it doesn't. It reads, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

    Laws not made in pursuance of the Constitution (unconstitutional laws) are not protected under the Supremacy Clause.

    "The states don't get any input on when the federal government is violating the constitution or not."

    Says you. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say "this document actually means whatever the fuck the SCOTUS says it means." Giving the federal government the power to unilaterally interpret the limits of its own power is idiotic. The Constitution would have never been ratified if the Supremacy Clause read "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, plus whatever other laws the feds decide to pass, regardless of whether or not they're constitutional, shall be the supreme law of the land."

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Giving the federal government the power to unilaterally interpret the limits of its own power is idiotic

    What's the alternative? Illinois deciding SCOTUS decided McDonald wrong and continuing to ban handguns in Chicago anyways?

  • Calidissident||

    In these discussions, why are hypothetical examples of states possibly abusing the power of nullification taken as irrefutable proof that we can't allow it, in spite of the massive federal overreaches that actually exists? If states abuse it in a particularly egregrious manner, at least there's the chance of outrage being sufficient for the feds to stop them anyways. If we just blindly defer to the feds on everything, who's there to stop them?

    The feds should override states when they violate the BOR, as Illinois is doing, which is obvious to anyone who isn't a liar or an idiot, and they shouldn't do it when states legalize drugs (for example). That seems to me to be perfectly logical from a libertarian POV

  • Irish||

    Theoretically Illinois could do that. And the only way the government could respond is if they choose to go in with force and enforce the laws.

    The American union is almost entirely an illusion bound by the states' willingness to adhere to federal authority. There's nothing actually forcing them to adhere to federal dictates, and I'd argue that the government has so overstepped the bounds of the authority granted it by the constitution that any state that chooses to disobey federal authority on constitutional grounds is justified.

  • prolefeed||

    What's the alternative? Illinois deciding SCOTUS decided McDonald wrong and continuing to ban handguns in Chicago anyways?

    "Illinois" can't decide a damn thing. "Illinois" is a fictional construct with no volition.

    Try this, and your fallacy becomes clearer: "What's the alternative? One of more elected officials in Illinois deciding SCOTUS decided McDonald wrong and continuing to ban handguns in Chicago despite the plain wording of the second amendment anyways?"

    Everyone is supposed to ride herd on everyone else to make sure they comply with the Constitution. Resolving those disputes could get messy, but allowing secession could resolve such disputes, by, say, individuals with the feds telling individuals in Chicago to either comply with the 2nd as written, or they'll be booted out of the Union.

  • CE||

    Thomas Jefferson disagreed, but what did he know?

  • prolefeed||

    All state judges are bound by the laws authorized by the federal government

    The oath of office of every politician or political officeholder, including judges, specifies that they must uphold the constitution. Which means that they must, as a condition of retaining that office, defend the constitution against unconstitutional laws.

    That most ignore that oath doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

  • Ted S.||

    The constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means.

  • John C. Randolph||

    That's a very dangerous, royalist claim. The constitution grants no such power to the supreme court.

    -jcr

  • Tony||

    The constitution means whatever Random Message Board Poster says it means.

  • Irish||

    If it's considered constitutional until a court says otherwise, then wouldn't Kansas refusing to obey the law be constitutional until a court says it isn't?

    Why is it constitutional for the federal government to do something until a court says otherwise, but not for a state court?

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    You think they're going to pass something they believe to be unconstitutional?

    Yes, I do.

    He is using an example of someone having to take their child to the hospital while not having insurance and being stuck with a hefty medical bill when someone began to ask "Where in the Constitution..."

    Rep. Hare cuts the man off and says "I don't worry about the Constitution on this to be honest..."

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    You think the constitution is going to stop them from passing something they want badly enough?

  • ant1sthenes||

    It's considered constitutional until a court says otherwise.

    What, the Kansas law? Ok then.

    You think they're going to pass something they believe to be unconstitutional?

    Are you serious?

  • Whahappan?||

    Yes. Virtually no politician gives two shits about the constitution. Oh, they'll pretend, of course, but I can't believe you'd question whether congress would knowingly pass unconstitutional laws. Now, to be clear, some would hesitate about doing so too openly, on the off chance of being slapped down by the Supreme Court, but to suggest politicians would have some principled objection to unconstitutional laws is delusional.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    "In purporting to override the Constitution and to criminalize legal acts of citizens, the federal laws directly conflict with the Constitution and are therefore null and void. Also, fuck you, Holder."

  • Stormy Dragon||

    As much as I hate admitting Holder is right about something, this seems a pretty straightforward application of Article VI, Clause 2:

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
  • Calidissident||

    This law isn't in pursuance of the Constitution, therefore the Supremacy Clause doesn't apply

  • Irish||

    At the very least this would end up in the Supreme Court. The history of the court is replete with cases where states refused to obey the federal government and the case of whether or not the government was allowed to pass a law had to be decided before the court before implementation.

    Congress is free to pass whatever it wants, and states are free to ignore it if they feel it's unconstitutional. The courts will eventually be the mediator.

    Unless the United States wants to send in the army to enforce its gun laws, I'm not entirely sure what they can do if a state just decides to ignore them over a constitutionality issue.

  • ||

    "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof;..."

    Try again. Actually read what you posted this time. Read it and think about it.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Tardy Tardy Tardy

  • ||

    It's spelled "Tony Toni Toné".

    Oh, wait, I get it!

  • Matrix||

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    I'm done with the world today. Fuck this place!

    Rappers arrested for a stupid song, gun confiscations in California, this...

    I'll be in my bunker cleaning my guns. And no, that's not a euphemism for once.

  • ||

    I'll be in my bunker cleaning my guns. And no, that's not a euphemism for once.

    You don't have to write off the possibility completely.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    People dating above their looks: the last relationship taboo?

  • Matrix||

    I know decent looking guys who date/marry ugly chicks... some justify it as being cheater proof

  • ||

    If you wanna be happy for the rest of your life
    Never make a pretty woman your wife...

    "Yeah, she's ugly, but she sure can cook, baby!"

  • SugarFree||

    My wife is a whole lot better looking than me. Most people believe someone of hypnosis is involved.

  • ||

    Isn't there?

  • SugarFree||

    Yeah, kinda.

  • JW||

    Can you teach me how to do that? Do you have an apprenticeship that I can apply to?

  • SugarFree||

    Sorry, dude. I just sort of stumbled into it myself.

  • fish||

    Most people believe someone of hypnosis is involved.

    I'm sure the fact that she's chained up under the stairs also minimizes her opportunities to stray.

  • SugarFree||

    Shit, son. She's out making mad bank. I'm a kept man.

  • ||

    Are you sure she's not making mad bank under the stairs by following the advice of anonobot?

  • Brandon||

    She is anonbot.

  • Ted S.||

    My wife is a whole lot better looking than me.

    That's not saying much.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Didn't she used to post here too? Some sort of bunny related handle?

  • gaijin||

    some justify it as being cheater proof

    Which seems to indicate a large amount of insecurity more than anything else.

  • SugarFree||

    I had a friend of mine that was a feeder. He'd date a moderately attractive girl--but one that obviously struggled to keep her weight down--and he'd systematic free her of the inhibitions of staying thin by encouraging her to eat what she wanted and praising her as she gained weight. (And he would gain weight as well.) Once she was big, he was convinced that meant she would never leave him. Then he would realize that he didn't like the personality of anyone he could do this to or she would come to her senses. They would break-up, he'd lose 50 pounds and go on a hunt to find a new girl with which to restart the cycle.

  • ||

    Names! Was it Epi? It was Epi, wasn't it? I'll bet it's Epi.

  • ||

    Did you see the word "skank" anywhere in there? No? There's your answer.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Yes, they don't call him EpicSkank for nothing.

  • SugarFree||

    Epi would never put on weight. He's a manorexic.

  • ||

    That too.

  • ||

    Do you believe this horseshit story? SugarFree with a "friend"? Maybe Dunphy when they were on the surf club together.

  • SugarFree||

    Jealousy is an ugly color on you, Zak.

  • ||

    I've been pretty bitter about life lately.

  • gaijin||

    Story gives new meaning to "pounding my girlfriend."

  • SugarFree||

    There was one he got so fat she could only cool down enough to sleep by having two oscillating fans running back and forth across her bulk, even in winter.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    The image of that is traumatizing and hilarious at the same time.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    My girlfriend is way more attractive than I am. No one seems to be shocked that I can make up for it by being intelligent and having a good personality.

  • gaijin||

    My girlfriend is way more attractive fuckable than I am

    See, now it's almost universally a true statement among guys.

  • ||

    I'm shocked that you think you're intelligent or have a good personality. Shocked!

  • T||

    He must have another personality to show her. Maybe he stole one?

  • Matrix||

    he keeps it in his basement

  • ||

    I know! He's faking it!

  • ||

    He was using his "T O N Y" persona.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Don't blow my sockpuppet cover!

  • ||

    I assume your too hot girlfriend does all the blowing.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    “If you can make a woman laugh, you can make her do anything.” ― Marilyn Monroe

  • Raven Nation||

    I'm suddenly reminded of George Constanza & shrinkage.

  • lap83||

    Some things are more important than looks. That said, the real stumper is when ugly people with bad personalities get dates.

  • ||

    Betas need dates too!

  • ||

    So does his mom.

  • Matrix||

    money

  • Juice||

    Dunham is dating “the hot guy from .fun” – indie rock band guitarist Jack Antonoff

    googled the name

    that guy is hot? um, ok.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I have yet to find a single common feature of "hot" men, besides being not-fat.

  • ||

    Since you aren't a straight chick or a gay man, you're probably not going to see any common features. You, me, we're not wired for that.

  • ||

    I think I've gotten better at this the last few years. I've also had a lot of long dry spells. Maybe I need Jesse's high school reversion counselor.

    In any case, I don't feel I can rank order the members of fun.

  • AuH20||

    I mean, I can see a Cary Grant or a Jon Hamm, a Gerard Butler, hell, even I can get why in some ways that twerp from Twilight gets laid.

    But I do not fucking understand the hipster attraction. At all.

  • ||

    It's the baby faced boy band types that confuse me. Uh, not in that way.

  • AuH20||

    Well, given that it is always young girls into them, I think it has to do with the fact that their more feminine looks are less threatening. Like, you've just started getting into boys, but sex is still this big scary thing that you don't really know if it will be any good or how to deal with it or anything. The big ass burly dude with a beard looks a lot more imposing, a lot more masculine, and a lot more threatening.

    The 120 pound twink singing back up vocals looks a lot less that way.

  • Killazontherun||

    Some years ago a friend and I were getting a ride from an attractive girl who as she made conversation told us how hot pretty boys made her feel. I was grossed out by the thought, imagined some boy band twink, and so I became non conversational as my estimation of her went down.
    When my friend and I were alone later, he asked me why I ignored her when she was hitting on me. It was a Fight Club moment where reality spins on its axis for me.

  • Killazontherun||

    I don't see it in Hamm. He's too bovine slow witted and stupid looking to be pretty in a human sense of the word. Maybe women find him cute like a monkey is cute.

  • ||

    I don't even try and understand. I realize that I don't know, that I'm not wired for that, so it's pointless for me to speculate. Except for myself--I can of course see how attractive I am.

    (gazes off into mirror)

  • Pro Libertate||

    There was an early Star Trek short story that involved some of the crew getting gender-swapped. So, for instance, Kirk was transformed into a female version of himself.

  • ||

    He is not hot, he's decent looking and could be attractive if he had an interesting personality, but "hot" is completely the wrong word.

  • SugarFree||

    The corruption of "hot." In many cases it means "not obviously ugly."

    His 5-year-old fat kid lisp is what annoys me.

  • ||

    Is he obviously superior to the rest of the band? "The hot member of fun." might just mean the hottest one.

  • SugarFree||

    that guy is hot straight? um, ok.

  • T||

    Not that straight, he's dating Lena Dunham. If he were straight, he'd be out picking up good looking chicks.

    I am making the assumption that fun has good looking women in their fanbase. I may be way off on that one.

  • SugarFree||

    No, Lena Dunham is an outlier. The worst part about hipsters is how fucking hot most of their women are. I mean, I'm sure they are as annoying as fuck, but the skinny art school girl with the dipshit glasses and half-green hair is alright with me.

  • ||

    Uh, not in Seattle, dude. The hipster chicks look just as terrible as the hipster dudes.

  • Irish||

    GET OUT OF SEATTLE YOU MASOCHIST!

    Jesus. What Coeus is to reading stupid shit on the internet, you are to living in places that will doubtlessly infuriate you.

  • ||

    Don't worry, dude, I specifically live in Belltown where the hipsters do not. They're in Georgetown and Capitol Hill.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    You live in the Space Needle?

  • SugarFree||

    But are those hipsters or hippies? The lines can blur.

  • ||

    They are unquestionably hipsters. The most remarkable thing about them is all their "fashions" are, like, specifically designed to be extremely unflattering and make you look terrible. Who wakes up and goes "I want to look my worst today"?

  • SugarFree||

    Who wakes up and goes "I want to look my worst today"?

    Other than Matt Welch?

  • ||

    Yes, obviously, that goes without saying.

  • AuH20||

    Well, one of the band's big causes is gay marriage. Like, annoyingly so. They seem like the kind of people who drop it in conversations to prove how noble or enlightened they are.

    Although, the guy is on the road a ton, and his "girlfriend" ain't, so it is probably easy for him to get some dude to suck him off when he needs some actual satisfaction (there is not way you can convince me that fucking Lena Dunham is anything other than horrific)

  • SugarFree||

    Fisting a garbage bag full of vomited-up Jello.

  • AuH20||

    You have the soul of a poet.

    ...

    Actually, I was wondering, do you have a spare? Some fucking asshole in a cassock boggarted my last one.

  • SugarFree||

    I go through them about two a week. I'll email you the number of my guy.

  • rac3rx||

    That guy is NOT HOT. I don't even know what that was. A muppet?

  • ||

    I hate to tell you guys, but in my eyes nearly any woman is better looking than any guy. Almost.

  • Matrix||

    Science finds fountain of youth brain regiion that slows down aging
    I do want to live forever. I don't care what anyone else says.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Even if you don't want to live forever, the fact you'll get tired of life after two thousand years isn't really much of an argument for why it's good to die at 85.

  • Matrix||

    yeah. Even if I were able to live another ten thousand years and finally think "well, I've had enough of life" that is better than becoming old and barely functional for the last few years of a short life.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    The book "Holy Fire" is one of my favorites on this subject. People were not immortal, but could live for thousands of years if they wanted to. It talked about how some people just let old age take them and some lived for a really long time, but inevitably, people decided they were done living, got their affairs in order, then had a doctor put them down.

  • CE||

    Not me. I'm here for the duration.

  • Killazontherun||

    Could never get tired of living so long as life is livable. I imagine that would be a problem for omniscient entities, but I'm just a creature with limited foresight beyond any particular moment. There will always be a beer I haven't had in a few years to keep me preoccupied.

  • Libertarian Book Club||

    Me? Maybe not forever, but I like the idea of checking out when I'm ready to, and not before.

  • Xenocles||

    +1

  • Gbob||

    I'm too stubborn to die. Besides, I want to live long enough to be the last man standing. At the end of the universe, I want to be there to ask god some pointed questions before I punch him in the nuts.

  • Killazontherun||

    You'll get the same answer then as you do now. Eternity will never be a completed set for emperical inspection (nut punch science -- kick it in the nads, see how it reacts).

  • JW||

    Rhode Island becomes the tenth state to recognize gay marriage

    Did you lose a lot of weight? I didn't realize it was you!

  • Matrix||

    School hosts "Redneck Day" in honor of "Duck Dynasty". Parents were offended
    No, it wasn't white people who are offended by making fun of rednecks. It's mostly black folks, upset because redneck automatically means 'racist' to them along with one student wearing a Confederate flag.
    So it's racist against asians to dress up as a stereotypical asian. It's racist against Native Americans to dress up in tribal gear. It's racist against blacks to do black face. It's racist against hispanics to dress up in traditional Mexican garb. It's racist against blacks, again, to dress up as rednecks.
    Was anyone up in arms when "White Chicks" came out?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I don't remember whites doing anything but laugh their ass off when Dave Chappelle did his whiteface character.

  • Agammamon||

    Or Eddy Murphy, his.

    Its part of our "privilege".

  • Stormy Dragon||

    If it's the Murphy bit I'm think of, it wasn't actually making fun of white people, it was making fun of black paranoia about white people.

  • Agammamon||

    Yeah, but he was still in whiteface. If blackface is offensive no matter what then I don't understand why I thought his and Chapelle's bits were so funny.

  • Killazontherun||

    The one with the white party bus? That one was brilliant.

  • ||

    White people are not capable of being offended for themselves.

    Just like minorities can't be racist. That's not possible, it's not a thing...they're MINORITIES.

  • AuH20||

    White people aren't taught to be victims. In fact, they are taught to be actively guilty because they are not victims.

    This is why some white women latch onto feminism, I suspect.

  • AuH20||

    And yeah, I kinda did sound like American there.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Dressing up is racist. Duh.

  • Matrix||

    what about dressing down?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    "IT'S A CULTURE NOT A COSTUME, BIGOT!"

  • Calidissident||

    "No, it wasn't white people who are offended by making fun of rednecks. It's mostly black folks, upset because redneck automatically means 'racist' to them along with one student wearing a Confederate flag."

    From, the link, that's not necessarily clear, aside from the Confederate flag kid.

  • Agammamon||

    Wait, if racism is bad, and thinking all rednecks are racist, doesn't that make the people who don't like rednecks bad people?

  • Stormy Dragon||

    along with one student wearing a Confederate flag.

    If someone showed up at Oktoberfest wearing a Nazi flag T-shirt, I don't think anyone would argue that just someone being proud of their German heritage.

  • SugarFree||

    But it's also a little po-faced to constantly equate rednecks with the Confederacy and then be shocked when the battleflag is part of the redneck "costume."

    If you link two things lot enough, don't get bent out of shape if they get linked.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    My point is that you can think it's fine for White Southerners to celebrate their heritage and still wonder why that particular aspect of their heritage receives so much focus of the celebrating?

  • AuH20||

    Honestly, I think it has less to do with the Civil War and a shit ton more to do with the fact that the Dukes of Hazard had it on their car.

  • RBS||

    That and a lot of younger people around here (I'm in SC) see it as a big fuck you to the PC overlords. I'd say the majority of the people I know that have some sort of Confederate flag stuff don't give a shit about the Civil War.

  • RBS||

    Also what SF said.

  • SugarFree||

    I think that if you spend decades calling "rednecks" racist because they are "rednecks" and not because they actually are racist, then rednecks are going to be racist for the fuck of it. Or they are going to go out of their way to be racists just to piss off the people who stereotype them.

    It's called "living down to expectations" and it's driven in both the backwoods and the ghetto by the fake outrage of middle-class and rich whites.

  • Chris Mallory||

    Because it is our heritage. If you pieces of yankee trash had any heritage left maybe you could celebrate it.

  • Irish||

    Shut the fuck up, Mallory.

  • Killazontherun||

    Oh, fuck you, CM. Without the North Eastern population growth, I would be stuck fucking your sister on a chain behind you and your dad.

  • AuH20||

    Yeah. Of all the things about Southern culture, and I am personally fascinated by the history of Memphis, Tennesee, I would put many, many, many, things ahead of the Confederacy and slavery.

    Like the food, the literature, the music, the various religions that sprang up there, the various folk tales and supernatural arcana, etc.

  • AuH20||

    That Yeah was an argreement with Irish, not Mallory.

  • Calidissident||

    It was the flag of the Army of Northern Virginia for a few years in the 1860's. Why is that such a hugely important representation of the heritage of the South?

  • ant1sthenes||

    Are you assuming that there's some sort of actual, unstated reason at this point in history other than "because that's what other people do and have done for a long time now"? Whatever unsavory history may led to its prominence, it's just a convention now.

    Besides, if a group of people feel like outsiders are trying to erase their culture, then isn't any attack by those same outsiders on some specific aspect of their culture going to provoke an irrational protective backlash?

  • Coeus||

    My point is that you can think it's fine for White Southerners to celebrate their heritage and still wonder why that particular aspect of their heritage receives so much focus of the celebrating?

    If the flag wasn't so ubiquitous, it wouldn't be a problem. As it is, it's a widespread symbol that relates to white tribalism. If the campaign to get it removed from society is successful, they'll just transfer the "racist" label to whatever takes it's place.

    Remember, tribalism is to be fostered and encouraged, unless it's white tribalism. This isn't a theory or speculation, it's a simple observation of current policy. I would be very surprised if it isn't explicitly stated in social justice classes.

  • Brett L||

    Wait until everyone who experienced it is dead.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    An almost sensical piece from Heather Mallick:
    Gwyneth Paltrow is a food-borne virus killing all the fun

  • Mokers||

    If I didn't know better, that could be a spoiler for Contagion.

  • ||

    When Tucille was in charge of the PM Links we got them right at 4:30.

  • Bam!||

    Nation in decline, it is.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Who's the new guy?

  • ||

    "He time travels with the Ministry of Funk, based out of 1976"

    I detect a possible hipster in Aisle 6.

  • ||

    You know who else used to do things better at Reason?

  • Raven Nation||

    Lucy?

  • Rich||

    DRINK!

  • ||

    Kansas is among several states that have passed or are trying to pass laws nullifying federal gun regulations in their jurisdictions.

    Really, though, what IS the matter with Kansas?

  • gaijin||

    Really, though, what IS the matter with Kansas?

    Pop sensibilities clashing with over orchestrated pretentiousness and one dimensional keyboards?

  • T||

    That's a lot of words to say 'shitty prog rock'.

  • JW||

    I have to admit that in my teen years, I did love me some Kansas. Had all the LPs, went to the shows whenever they came around, etc, etc. Hell, I even won tickets to a show once, ("caller 9 wins the tickets!") which was pretty fucking cool.

    Now, not so much. I can barely make it through one song.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Because of Supernatural, I can make it through Carry On Wayward Son.

  • rac3rx||

    Same here.

  • Brutus||

    I set stage and ran a spotlight for Kansas back in 1976. Met most of the band. Nice guys, and a great concert.

  • Matrix||

  • DJF||

    So we need Smell-O-Vision?

  • gaijin||

    So we need Smell-O-Vision?

    would definitely require a more selective approach to virtual p0rn

  • Pro Libertate||

    What, io9? That's not a source. They never report science right.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I know some people think driving is awesome and fun and stuff, but I am going to love it when I finally can just browse the internet until I reach my destination.

  • ||

    I manage this a lot today. Although reading from the Kindle app is easier than reading blogs. Fucking fixed font size on Google Reader.

  • Juice||

    It's called riding the bus.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    The bus doesn't go where I want it to go.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    More importantly, the Bus doesn't go WHEN I want it to go.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    That too.

  • Libertarian Book Club||

    Nothing takes my mind off the road like a good book.

  • John||

    I love driving.

  • AuH20||

    I don't mind short drives and can even find a bit of aimless driving relaxing. But for anything above about an hour and a half I would love a driverless car.

  • ||

    Before I broke it my Kindle was awesomely sized to sit on top of my wheel for long straight highway drives. I've done a lot of Colorado to Texas trips this way. The iPhone grip is less ergonomically pleasing.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I like driving, but I'm all for automaticamobiles. When they actually work and don't kill me when they reboot for some stupid reason.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    It does say they've done 400,000 miles without an accident. That's way better than human drivers.

  • ||

    Very insightful comment from that article:

    Governments will be very slow to accept driverless cars, because these cars will never speed, run red lights or make unsafe lane changes, and governments have become dependent on traffic violation revenues, it`s not about safety anymore, it`s about revenue streams, and they will be very cool to giving up that money generator
  • ||

    I'd add to that the elimination of DUI arrests, which can be pretty lucrative. And what about all the asset forfeiture you get from bringing the dogs in on routine traffic stops?

    There's also the possibility of a driving underclass that can't afford the robot cars getting hit harder to make up the lost money.

  • Pro Libertate||

    An excellent point.

  • ||

    Cross-posting info on the state of carry laws in IL from the twerk thread.

  • Marc F Cheney||

    Oh, thanks! I was asking.

  • ||

    Oh glad you're back, you're why I looked into it :)

  • Marc F Cheney||

    Gosh, what a nice lady!

    That's depressing. They'll probably push through some incredibly restrictive law that still effectively bans concealed weapons, act like it doesn't, and then wait for someone to say it's not good enough.

  • ||

    The IL State Rifle Association is pretty on top of things. They send me way too much email, but they are serious about not letting this get fucked up.

  • Marc F Cheney||

    Good to hear. I'd get on their email list, but I already have the GOA to send me way too much email.

  • T||

    It's like you people don't know how to use filters and folders. If I didn't filter my work and home emails I'd go mad.

  • Xenocles||

    That's what my spam box is for. If your list sends me too many emails I just send you over to spam.

  • ||

    Well I do want to at least skim most of it. But when there's actual legislative action happening, there's going to be a lot of alerts.

  • gaijin||

    Apparently, the April 19 bill failed because dems tried to sneak an amendment into it that would have required local sheriffs to decide who could even apply for the permits. No wonder nothing gets done in Illinois...shenanigans rule.

  • ||

    Yes. There are a number of Dems who have been encouraging the assembly to pass something that will actually pass, because if they don't, they are fucked. But there are even more Dems who are interested in acting like jackasses no matter what.

  • AuH20||

    Is it a "Hope one of the conservatives drops dead on the SC and all the Second Amendment cases get reversed, because when liberals say respect precedent they mean respect OUR precedent" or are they not smart enough for that?

  • ||

    Yeah, I don't know. I think that's why she didn't want to appeal. Was just talking about exactly this with my bf and he's more pessimistic about SCOTUS on this, but I don't know why.

  • ||

    Apparently, the April 19 bill failed because dems tried to sneak an amendment into it that would have required local sheriffs to decide who could even apply for the permits.

    For once Illinois politicians have a leg up on the national politicians! Someone apparently read an awful law in time to realize that it should not be passed!

  • ||

    Warren Buffett joins Twitter.

    I can think of one person here who's excited about this...

  • gaijin||

    bread and butter

  • Matrix||

  • gaijin||

    Warren Buffett joins Twitter

    Seriously, who cares? Another twitter account ghost written by some secretary who pays more of her income in taxes than her boss.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Buffett is the King of Capitalism. Not that he is going to hand out stock tips BEFORE he has his positions in.

  • gaijin||

    Buffett is the King of Capitalism Croneyism.

    Fixed. But yeah, not likely he will be able to hand any tips on how to succeed at that either.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I've dispelled that notion before.

    Anyway, the best capitalists are classic liberals - Buffett, Gates, Jobs, Ellison, Soros, Jacobs (founded Qualcomm), etc.

  • John||

    Soros is a crook and convicted felon. And Buffett makes his money buying businesses who can't pay inheritance taxes and selling life insurance to people to avoid such taxes. His entire life is a giant parasitic existence off of the tax code.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    You trust the French conviction of his alleged "insider trading"? Those anti-Semitic bastards?

    You would.

  • fish||

    And like that shreeky is banished back to the nether regions.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Bullshit. This place hates Buffett for one reason only. He never plowed the GOP plantation.

  • Jordan||

    Yep, Sparky called it this morning. You are delusional.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Then why do you hate Buffett? Don't give me this "crony" shit. I have linked to how the Kochs lobby 30X more than Buffett.

  • Jordan||

    Because he lobbies for higher taxes for everyone else.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    I don't hate Buffett, and I think he's a brilliant investor. But he's also a cronyism hypocrite who is especially good at shilling the rubes.

  • gaijin||

    who is this 'place' you speak of?

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Headshops raided by RCMP because of illegal pot copyright infringement.

  • Brett L||

    Idiot or genius?

    After being accused of shoplifting from a Derry, N.H., thrift store called Finders Keepers, Ruben Pavon is arguing that he was simply confused by the store's name.

  • gaijin||

    Genius! if he kept a straight face when he made the argument.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Total genius. In fact, if I were the judge, I'd laugh and let him off with a warning.

  • Houkt Un Fanixs||

    That made my day! Especially when somebody was like.. we had better keep him out of the Master Bait Shop

  • Coeus||

    Add it to the list from earlier today:
    Krugman's spinning the Medicaid findings.

    Basically, budget woes forced Oregon to allocate Medicaid access by lottery, giving a rare randomized experiment. Those who got Medicaid suffered much less financial distress and less depression; they received more preventive care; but on some (not all dimensions) their health wasn’t significantly better than those who lost out in the lottery.

    Somehow, conservatives think this is a big win for their opposition to universal health insurance. Why? What it suggests is that the health benefits of ANY kind of health insurance are somewhat hard to identify over a two year period; so, are you about to give up your own insurance, or is your best bet that having that insurance is still a very good idea? And the financial benefits are a big part of that! Since you are going to treat your illnesses, better not to bankrupt yourself in the process, right?
  • gaijin||

    And the financial benefits are a big part of that! Since you are going to treat your illnesses, better not to bankrupt yourself in the process, right?

    Wait, Kruggie thinks costs are magically not shifted by insurance?

  • Juice||

    Oh, the study was only over two years? Practically worthless. Thankfully money was spent.

  • ||

    But they increased their consumption of medical care. Which is still paid for. Which increases the tax burden.

    Saving people from financial distress may be admirable, but doing so by obfuscating and shifting costs through taxation isn't the way to do it. Fucking hack.

  • Raven Nation||

    Actually, Cato did a panel on this last year. Had people from all over the political spectrum & they all seem to think the Oregon situation is a pretty good look into benefits, costs, etc.

    Of course, they didn't agree on all the ramifications.

  • rts||

    Kelowna mountie given suspended sentence for kicking man

    A former Kelowna Mountie was given a suspended sentence and 18 months probation for kicking a man in the face during an arrest in January 2011.

    Const. Geoff Mantler pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm last year, after he was caught on video kicking Buddy Tavares in the face.
  • Stormy Dragon||

    kicking a man in the face

    This fall, Chuck Norris is "Walker, Kelowna Mountie"

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

  • Pro Libertate||

    You mean the UN? Well, we started it, you know. And it's based in New York. Probably some kind of jobs program.

  • Bam!||

  • ||

    Don't worry, I'm sure tomorrow's Friday Funny will restore your faith in humanity.

  • Coeus||

    Yet another gender studies major who thinks that the only problem with the feminist movement is the label.

    I recently gave a guest lecture in a colleague's classroom on feminist theology. As usual, I had to spend half the class period in myth-busing mode, trying to redeem the word "feminist" enough for the students to listen. This meant I covered only a fraction of what I'd prepared. Still, I felt good about the talk, mainly because none of the students responded with overtly hostile questions. As I was leaving, a student came up to thank me and said, offhandedly, "It's too bad we have to waste so much time clarifying misconceptions about feminism. I wish we could have spent the whole hour talking more about the ideas."
  • Irish||

    Not surprising. Feminists spend most of their time dicking around with semantics, so if anything goes wrong it can't be that there is a flaw in their belief system, it must be the words they're using.

    Maybe if they stopped using the word 'patriarchy' to mean 'anything that is currently annoying me' they'd see that the problem has nothing to do with their word choice.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I don't get the hatred of feminism here. Feminism has allowed women to fully realize their inner slut. Feminism is an individual statement. Feminism is non-conformist.

    Now mixing STATISM with feminism is pretty dangerous but that is true of any ism.

  • John||

    That and destroyed any number of lives by totally turning the family law system against men and making it very difficult for men accused of rape to get a fair trial. But other than that it has been great.

  • lap83||

    Feminism is a rejection of logic. They celebrate the sexual revolution in theory while simultaneously acting like all of the bad consequences are exploitation and misogyny. So women need to be empowered to blame everyone else for the results of encouraging sluttiness. It's fucking ridiculous and deserves to be mocked at every turn.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Would you mock an Afghan feminist? One from Saudi Arabia?

  • Irish||

    No, but I also wouldn't mock a liberal living in 1785. You know, since they have nothing to do with liberals today. Sort of like a feminist fighting for her right not to have acid thrown in her face for going to school has nothing to do with someone claiming she doesn't have a pony because of patriarchy.

  • Bam!||

    Of course not. I'd just report her to the Afghan or Saudi government and wait until the problem is corrected.

  • Irish||

    I don't hate feminism that's actually in favor of equality, but of course the modern feminist movement is not. It's an invitation for rich girls to whine about how oppressed they are and lay claim to the only thing their trust fund can never grant them: Victim status.

  • Jordan||

    Have you ever read any of the links people actually post? This brand of feminism is completely deranged and disconnected from any notion of equality.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    No. Feminism today is almost deceased in the US. They have a little influence in birth control issues and not much else.

  • Bam!||

    Did you forget the 2012 election?

  • Jordan||

    Ooookay. What does that have to do with what I said?

  • Irish||

    Feminists have more political power than Beckerheads, but Shrike never seems to have problems going after them.

  • Coeus||

    No. Feminism today is almost deceased one of the most influential political factions in the US.

    There FIFY. They've even got scientific researchers running scared. Google "intentional bias in domestic violence research" sometime.

  • AuH20||

    The only feminists that I know of who don't mix statism with feminism write for reason, like Cathy Young.

    Oh, Wendy McIroy and Mrs. Sunderman.

    There, those are the two that don't write, or used to write, for reason.

  • lap83||

    What ideas?
    "Like, omg, a guy almost accidentally touched my butt at a coffee shop today. Was I almost raped or just othered because he didn't find me attractive enough to do it on purpose? Discuss"

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    As I was leaving, a student came up to thank me and said, offhandedly, "It's too bad we have to waste so much time clarifying misconceptions about feminism. I wish we could have spent the whole hour talking more about the ideas."

    Yeah, sure they did. It was probably closer to, "Thanks for coming in," and that was it.

    Academics are pathologically addicted to embellishing how wonderfully people reacted to the pearls they dispense.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    I wish we could have spent the whole hour talking more about the ideas.

    Once you've said something like "Women, like men, should be judged by the content of their character" how do you fill the other 59:55 unless it's with stuff other "feminists" are going to have to spend time explaining away at their guest lectures?

  • ant1sthenes||

    Women, like men, should be judged by the content of their character

    What does that have to with Communism?

  • AuH20||

    It's a bait and switch.

    "Feminism is about equality between men and women."

    "Oh, yeah, absolutely. I agree. I suppose I am a feminist!"

    "And to have that, the only way forward is universal healthcare, relaxed evidentiary laws concerning rape, tighter gun controls, legal abortion, mandatory paid paternity leave..."

    "Woah, wait. I want equality, but you don't need that stuff to achieve it."

    "MANSPLAINER!!!! MISOGYNIST!!!!"

  • AuH20||

    Also, the new battle cry is "My feminism will be intersectional or it will be bullshit" which means that, instead of just carrying about the oppression of women, you have to care about the oppression of all people: Your able bodied (ie fully fuctional body and brain. Mental illness gets you out of this, somewhat)? Privileged. Have money? Class privilege.

    I mean, they have basically openly embraced anti-capitalist, pretty explicitly Marxist rhetoric, and then they wonder why every other intellectual and academic discipline looks down their noses at them.

  • ||

    The U.S. wants North Korea to release an American sentenced to 14 years in a prison camp for an unspecified crime...

    Because we totally are against holding people for over a decade for no specific crime.

  • Agammamon||

    We're upset because NK pretended to give the guy a trial - makes us look bad.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    At any other moment in the last three years a Bundesliga encounter between already-crowned champions Bayern Munich and arch-rivals Borussia Dortmund would be a season highlight yet their Saturday clash is nothing more than an awkward moment.

    Germany's top two teams have a much bigger trophy in their sights when they meet in the Champions League final on May 25 after brushing aside Spain's Barcelona and Real Madrid.

  • Coeus||

    Watch the Fark comentariat try to defend the Obama administration.

    First, on the justice department appeal for Plan B.

    Then, on the Obamacare cost overruns.

    There is some frantic spinning going on in there. If we could learn how harness all that energy, we could be off fossil fuels in a few years.

  • Irish||

    I don't want to venture into the realm of madness and horror. Want to quote some of the spinning? You seem more willing to gaze into the face of evil than I am.

  • ||

    I'm thinking Coeus has some sort of brain disorder that reverses his pain and pleasure centers. It's the only possible explanation for why he seems to enjoy reading that stuff so much.

  • Irish||

    I'm delving into the Obamacare thread. You might not hear from me again.

  • ||

    I just want to tell you good luck. We're all counting on you.

  • Irish||

    Single payer, takes a layer of profit out of the system and "should" cut costs. Works in other single payer based countries but we all know the USA likes to be #1 so why not #1 in health care costs...

    They really think profits are a 'layer' that makes something more expensive. By this logic, we should all be communists. ALL THE PRICES WOULD GO DOWN!

  • PapayaSF||

    There was a study some years ago that found that the amount of fraud in Medicare far exceeds the profits of the major health insurance companies.

  • Brutus||

    It's about $60 billion a year.

  • Irish||

    OH SWEET JESUS!

    This is a pretty classic example of GOP obstructionism working. Deny the government the necessary funds to run a program, watch as the program then falters, and you can then both (i) campaign on how the program is broken and government doesn't work and (ii) campaign against Democrats asking for more funding.

    These people are insane. Obama claimed this would lower costs. If it's lowering costs, then why would it need more funding?

    Goddammit, Fark.

  • gaijin||

    If it's lowering costs, then why would it need more funding?

    ya gotta spend money to save money! dontcha kow anything about shopping Irish?

  • PapayaSF||

    And then there's classic Democrat thinking:

    1) Begin well-intentioned program.

    2) When program proves to be useless, unsustainable, or has terrible side effects, claim this is because it's underfunded.

    3) When still more money is spent and it's still not working, claim this is because it's underfunded.

    4) Etc.

    There are exceptions, of course: failures of military or criminal justice programs are never claimed to be due to underfunding.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Democrats have, at best, a cargo cult level understanding of anything related to the economy. They see that people who are intelligent and driven tend to make more money. Applying their massive brains to the task, they surmise that if the people currently sucking at their government jobs were paid more, they would become intelligent and driven.

  • Coeus||

    I'm thinking Coeus has some sort of brain disorder that reverses his pain and pleasure centers.

    Maybe I should change my pic to Scorpius.

  • ||

    You should. But make sure it's the Scorpius that talks to John in his mind wearing a Hawaiian shirt.

  • Coeus||

    OK. Then we'll have pizza. And margarita shooters.

  • ||

    Pretty predictable: it's the racist, obstructionist GOP's fault that the program is having implementation problems

  • Juice||

    Here you go:

    1. Administration makes a decision
    2. Judge rules to override that decision
    3. Administration appeals ruling to return to original policy

    I'm pretty sure this is handled by a reasonably simple shell script running on a server under someone's desk. No need to get all "Obama is teh authoritarianz" about it. The administration made their policy based on what they probably think is sound reasoning and don't want to see it overridden by one guy with an ax to grind.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    That second one was pathetic.

    "THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD GIVE US FREE STUFF AND MAKE SOMEONE ELSE PAY FOR IT HERPITY DERPITY DOO! MONEY COMES FROM ELVES AND UNICORNS!"

  • ||

  • Matrix||

    So.... time to go Piccolo on the Moon?

  • ||

    A DBZ reference?

  • Pro Libertate||

    What you're telling me is that the Moon is anti-Southern? Say, that Neil Armstrong was one of them Yankees, weren't he?

  • ||

  • Matrix||

    a relative of Chuck Norris?

  • gaijin||

    maybe he did it with his bear hands?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    His bear arms, because he's a redneck 2nd amendment nut.

  • gaijin||

    ^lol

  • kupekyrenes||

    what Elaine replied I'm blown away that a student able to earn $5519 in a few weeks on the internet. have you read this web link.. http://www.ask22.com

  • Pro Libertate||

    Say, you don't really know Elaine, do you?

  • PapayaSF||

    Where's the "Flag as spam" button?

  • ||

    Next to preview.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

  • From the Tundra||

    Beautiful! So my question for all you East-siders: Habs/Sens or Rangers/Caps tonight? That Penguins game last night was a snoozefest

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Caps.
    Ovechkin's found his groove. Let's see if he can hold on to it post-season.

  • Rich||

    More entertainment from "The Free State".

    The only good news I've heard about the place is that O'Malley is polling under 1% for his purported Presidential run.

  • John||

    I know O"Malley is retarded enough for the Ds. But I never understood how anyone thought he could be President. It is not like the Dems don't have a good supply of better known retards.

  • AuH20||

    Seriously, though, the Dem's bench just doesn't seem that deep. It's Hilary (which means that the other possible female, Gillibrand of NY, either won't run or will split), and then who else? They don't have a ton of Governors who would be good ideas to run. The only one I can think of is Cuomo from New York. I suppose if Corey Booker were to toss his hat in the ring he could run as a black centrist Democrat, but the teachers unions fucking hate him, and you don't win the Democratic party if the government unions turn on you.

    Seriously, what is their bench looking like?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    One dirty Irishman in the catbird's seat per century is enough, thanks.

  • Irish||

    You son of a bitch.

  • gaijin||

    hey, what's the big deal...he didn't say drunken irishman.

  • ||

    Why be tautologous?

  • Matrix||

    drunken irishman is redundant

  • John||

    Men and women’s attitudes about marrying for the first time are not different among young adults. But among never-married adults ages 30 to 50, men (27%) are more likely than women (8%) to say they do not want to marry.

    http://pjmedia.com/drhelen/201.....-to-marry/

    It is almost like making marriage a totally one sided affair is having an effect or something.

  • Bam!||

    There's only one solution: A redistribution of marriage. Some sort of government agency that will determine who gets married to who. And if you refused, you get taxed.

    It's the only way.

  • Juice||

    My girlfriend and I have been living together for 12 years. I guess I can call her my wife. But getting legally married...I just see no benefit to doing it. At all. Maybe if I were ever unemployed I could get on her health insurance or vice versa, but that's it.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    My girlfriend and I have been living together for 12 years. I guess I can call her my wife. But getting legally married...I just see no benefit to doing it.

    Depending on where you live, it's conceivable you just did.

  • Coeus||

    I saw that and was thinking the exact same thing.

  • PapayaSF||

    The ghost of Lee Marvin would like a word with you.

  • ||

    Here's a shocker: 'Millenials', or 'Generation Me' have a have a profound sense of entitlement that warps their expectations.

    Of course the Salon commentators are defending them. Ahem:

    "warped by a profound sense of entitlement" ... yea, imagine the gall of those kids expecting a job, a home, a future.

    *Ahem*, yea, when I was young and the 'free market' was really taking swing and there were no jobs without a paper-hat option I was called a "slacker".

    From both our generations my I say; go fuck yourselves.

    And this:

    And who could blame them? They aren't stupid; they know the system is rigged against them. Work hard and your job will be outsourced. Get a college degree and spend your life paying back student loans.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    An analysis of the values and ambitions of American 12th graders finds “a growing discrepancy between the desire for material rewards and the willingness to do the work usually required to earn them.”

    Yes, because clearly this is the first generation where high school seniors had an unrealistic view of how life works and their general importance to it.

  • Irish||

    A GROWING discrepancy.

    That means the discrepancy is getting larger. Hence these high school seniors have more unrealistic views than past generations.

    It's a social science study so I don't actually trust it, but given what the study says, your argument doesn't really hold water.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Why bother engaging the data when a dismissive handwave will suffice?

  • Stormy Dragon||

    I'd argue that the article is misrepresenting the survey. If you look at the actual report

    The question was "A13: To what extent do you think the things listed below will prevent you from getting the kind of work you would like to have?" and then has various options like race, religion, etc.

    So when a higher percentage says "A13J: Not wanting to work hard", that doesn't mean "I'm lazy and will have trouble getting a job"; it means "People who can't get jobs can't because they're bad workers, not because they're discriminated against"?

  • Brett L||

    I blame the lack of vocational tracks.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Putting "free market" in scare quotes is ironically appropriate, although this rube obviously doesn't realize it.

  • T||

    Work hard and save your money, then you can buy the shiny things. Doing it the other way around is bad, mmkay?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    This was funny, though:

    Aunt Messy
    Thursday, May 2, 2013 11:32 AM MDT
    It's ok to WANT that stuff - as long as you're willing to work to earn it.

    No one's going to hand you a lifestyle for free.

    blunderdog
    Thursday, May 2, 2013 12:45 PM MDT
    Until you're old enough to get checks and health-insurance paid for by your grandkids, anyway.

  • AuH20||

    I mean, I think in some ways the young do have a somewhat legitimate feeling of being screwed.

    Just, y'know, not for the reasons most of my peers ascribe (evil corporations) but yeah, we have come of age in one of the most highly regulated, arbitrary periods in global history and are going to be asked to pay for massive entitlements that previous generations lacked the responsibility to fix.

    I guess I will feel more sympathetic to the cane shaking when I no longer have to pay for your hover scooters.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    we have come of age in one of the most highly regulated, arbitrary periods in global history

    Oh yeah. The soviet union, the third reich, feudal europe, those were nothing. Poor AuH2O had the misfortune of being born in 21st Century America. The horrors.

  • Irish||

    Oh shut up, Stormy. You know why he said 'global history?' Because neither the Soviet Union, the third reich or feudal Europe were the entire world at their period of time.

    More importantly, he never compared his plight to the Jews in Germany, the serfs in Feudal Europe or the Kulaks in the Soviet Union. You're ignoring his general point and going for a cheap, bizarre insult based on something he didn't even say.

  • Gladstone||

    So I guess we shouldn't criticize the government at all? The Boston Lockdown wasn't the Holocaust afterall.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    No, but we can criticize the government without histrionically declaring it the worst tyranny in human history.

  • Calidissident||

    Weren't the Baby Boomers called the "Me First" generation? I have little sympathy for "Get off my lawn!" old people bitching about the entitlement mentality of young people when their entitlements are bankrupting the country

  • ||

    Read this reddit thread about a guy with $240,000 student loan debt and his sense of entitlement.

    Anybody with that much loan debt is fucking retarded and so are his parents for cosigning it. There is no excusing it. And yet there are people in there blaming the system.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Have y'all heard the new Fleetwood Mac songs?

  • Marc F Cheney||

    I've been on a Lindsey Buckingham kick lately. Are the new songs terrible? They're terrible, aren't they.

  • ||

    It doesn't pain me. I generally don't feel bands can put out good music decades after their first stuff. Plus, while I'm sort of aware there's a male vocalist on Fleetwood Mac, I prefer not to be reminded of this fact.

  • Coeus||

    This totally explains why I was never one of the guys who's group of friends got tore apart by a chick. Several times in college, I nipped that in the bud in my friend group. I was taking this for acne.

  • ||

    Here is an actual quote from the study, published on Scientific Reports, which is a platform owned by the prestigious multidisciplinary scientific publishing company, Nature Publishing Group:

    Males tend to cooperate with physically attractive females without careful evaluation of their trustworthiness, resulting in betrayal by the female.
    I would say that it's lazy of a team of professionals — whose entire profession is based in the proper use of empirical evidence — to treat an unqualified, baseless gender stereotype as fact, but the word "lazy" fails to encompass how regressive and offensive this sentence is. While I understand that this is the basic mechanism behind the "honey trap risk," that doesn't change the fact that it implies that women are manipulative and inherently untrustworthy.

    Funny how they hate social science when studies suggest results they don't like.

  • Irish||

    It's not sexist towards women though. It says something very negative about men, if anything. We're stupid and easily manipulated by hot girls. We don't think about whether or not a hot girl is trustworthy because we're hypnotized by boobs.

    This actually seems fairly accurate.

  • AuH20||

    But hot girls are thin.

    THIN PRIVELEGE!!!!

  • Coeus||

    They rail against anything that even hints at the fact that most women have the power in sexual relationships. And yet every comment on something they don't like usually involves some Lysistrata plan.

  • AuH20||

    If women have power, rape culture can't exist.

    It's also why they never, ever, ever bring up men getting raped, either by other men or by women.

  • AuH20||

    Actually to elaborate: We openly celebrate the rape of certain male criminals (pedophiles) in prison in society. And there have been movies, released in the last 15 years, where a guy is raped and it is played for laughs. Hell, in the movie 40 Days and 40 Nights, Josh Hartnett's girlfriend gets mad at him... for being raped by his ex while he is drugged.

    All of those things feminists say rape culture does to women? They do happen. To men.

  • Coeus||

    All of those things feminists say rape culture does to women? They do happen. To men.

    A very telling anecdote is how hard they pushed to get the FBI's definition of rape changed. And how hard they celebrated when they did. They managed to get non-violent rape into the stats (note: I have no problem with this) but somehow "forgot" to expand the definition to include hetero rape of a man.

    Remember that the next time you hear a feminist talk about how feminism is about "equality for all", and that's why MRA's (note: MRA's have their problems as well, but that's another discussion) aren't needed.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Working from the assumption that men "tend to be" horny fools and women "tend to be" conniving

    I think she's confusing "assumptions" for "facts". Or she's just being conniving, I guess.

  • Libertarian||

    Off topic and Florida related (the best of both worlds):

    Florida student charged and expelled after 'science experiment' goes awry

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl.....nt-charges

  • Enough About Palin||

    "The U.S. wants North Korea to release an American sentenced to 14 years in a prison camp for an unspecified crime against the state."

    If they can just let the Benghazi people die to protect Obama, then they can say fuck-off to Kim Jong Un and finally put an end to that fat faggot's blackmail attempts.

  • Coeus||

    How to be a good social justice advocate:

    1. Understand that oppressed minorities have complete say in how their freedom from this oppression will be won. COMPLETE. Their bodies, souls, and minds are being bombarded DAILY. Only they can say how this war against oppression should be fought. Anything else is in direct opposition to this pursuit of freedom.

    Your logic is not welcome.

    2. When an oppressed minority is speaking about issues of oppression, you listen, you don’t “debate”. This isn’t a game of one-up-manship, this is your chance to further your education, which in turn will further your advocacy.

    Seriously, your logic is not welcome (they really want to emphasize this, don't they?)

    (continued on next post)

  • Coeus||

    3. Advocacy isn’t about getting everything “right” or trying so hard not to be contradictory. There are many overlapping issues involving race, gender, class, sexuality, ableism. There’s no point in trying to line everything all up in a row into some kind of “belief system”. There’s enough systems out there. The only thing that matters is that oppressed minorities are SAFE from oppression and that they have the tools to free themselves from this oppression.

    Stop holding us to our own standards.

    6. Understand anger; be angry WITH them. Don’t internalize any harsh words, especially if you’re not in any immediate threat. If an oppressed minority says something that seems to generalize the face of their oppressor, don’t internalize it but examine how the systemic nature of it impacts their daily lives. Remember, you have the power to simply ignore it. Undoubtedly you won’t experience this feeling again for awhile, but every time you do, understand that this is how oppressed minorities feel everyday, multiple times a day, all of their lives.

    And again with the evils of holding them to the standards they expect from others.

    (continued on next comment)

  • Coeus||

    7. As well, understand ways that you *are* contributing to systemic, unconscious, or even, yes, outright oppression.; because, trust me, you *are* doing it. DON’T LET YOURSELF OFF THE HOOK! Keep and sustain a general level of consciousness and realize that years of this can’t be undone in an instant.

    If you even thought of using logic or holding them to their own standards of conduct, (or even if you didn't) you are part of the problem.

    Ahh, the wonders of the modern social justice movement.

  • Irish||

    STOOOOOOP! You're killing me.

  • Mr. Weebles||

    From your link:

    Alex Smith is a queer black activist, poet, dj, actor, musician, afro punk/afro-futurist chronicler of the naughty universe. Smith's work speaks to the edge, to the post-fringe dystopia slowly creeping upon us. Too cantankerous and flamboyant for the Saul Williams wanna-be/def poetry set, too tribal for academia, Smith paints viral inscriptions for an audience of armed pixie insurrectionists.

    So they're basically full of shit, no?

  • ant1sthenes||

    Pretty much.

  • T||

    Only they can say how this war against oppression should be fought.

    Then WTF do they need a social justice advocate for? Seems to me this is arguing against the need for communit organizers, social justice advocates, and the whole victim grievance industry. Or am I othering with logic again?

  • AuH20||

    No. It is a basic contradiction of anything that springs from the New Left.

    The Old Left (New Deal) was the idea that these experts would go to good schools, mostly Ivies, and then join the government and humanely manage society with the stuff they had learned. It was benevolent, but paternalistic.

    The New Left was going to change that. They would go to college and study the same things as the old left (sociology, etc.). But then they would go into these communities and learn from The People and help them to organize themselves and such.

    The problem, of course, is that the people in these communities are often much less educated and much more about dollars and cents. I can't fit the Terry Pratchett quote in here but I will in next post and sums it up the best.

  • AuH20||

    From Night Watch:

    People on the side of The People always ended up dissapointed, in any case. They found that The People tended not to be grateful or appreciative or forward-thinking or obedient. The People tended to be small-minded and conservative and not very clever and were even distrustful of cleverness. And so the children of the revolution were faced with the age-old problem: it wasn't that you had the wrong kind of government, which was obvious, but that you had the wrong kind of people. As soon as you saw people as things to be measured, they didn't measure up.
  • ||

    God bless Terry Pratchett.

  • ||

    Logic and reason are tools of the oppressor.

  • ||

  • Coeus||

    Rather than black homophobia, "stubborn" better describes black resistance to conservative appeals based on homophobia, or the determination of black voters in 2012 who defied a nationwide voter suppression campaign to elect a black president who has himself endorsed the right of same-sex couples to marry.
  • Juice||

    Black folks, who were disenfranchised for centuries, didn't put any of those old anti-sodomy laws on the books.

    Where black people are in power, they execute sodomites.

  • AuH20||

    Is it the whole "Marginalized groups are only turning on each other because that's what THE MAN wants!" kind of shit?

    I think one thing that gay activists do that make them no friends in the black community: Compare the two struggles civil rights wise. If I were black and were old enough to remember the 50s or 40s South, I would find that incredibly offensive.

  • Coeus||

    Compare the two struggles civil rights wise. If I were black and were old enough to remember the 50s or 40s South, I would find that incredibly offensive.

    Exactly. And I am constantly wondering why some old black person doesn't just fucking go apeshit on Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton for comparing minor (both real and imagined) slights to it on a constant basis.

  • AuH20||

    Well, it may have something to do with the fact that the most Zen humans I have ever met on the planet are old Black dudes.

  • Tony||

    Because gays had it relatively better in the 40s and 50s?

    If I have my history right you weren't even allowed to be a gay person in public then. Comparisons are academic. They're two civil rights struggles for two different groups. Those groups suffered different types of injuries. If you're equating or distinguishing them, based on what factors? Who was treated worse by the dominant cultural group? Who cares? The problem is there being a dominant group.

  • Coeus||

    If I have my history right you weren't even allowed to be a gay person in public then.

    You weren't allowed to be straight, either. Even holding hands was frowned upon in many areas. All this mugging down in public shit is new for everybody in a country founded by puritans.

    If you're equating or distinguishing them, based on what factors?

    Firehoses, lynchmobs and legally mandated segregation? Go ahead, tell me all about how Stonewall was the same as Rosewood.

  • ||

    The black civil rights movement and the gay rights movement are clearly not the same thing, and I find it obnoxious when people try to port the language of the first to the latter, but public displays of affection aren't the only things that were "frowned upon" in the '40s and '50s.

    The two experiences can't be compared off the top of my head I can think of Alan Turing being banned from working on anything scientifically relevant after he was found to be a homosexual (Britain) and there was an entire strain of McCarthyism around purging the government of homosexuals during the red scares. People who were found to be gay were publicly shamed in the papers, ostracized by their peers and were essentially unemployable. Vice cops did some despicable things to entrap and trump up charges. Also any kind of magazine or newsletter that referenced homosexuality in a non-positive light was obscenity and mailing it was a Federal crime. So yeah, it was pretty fucking illegal to be gay in the '50s.

  • ||

    Actually we just passed the anniversary of one of the more famous congressional hearings on the topic.

    I would like to strip the fetid, stinking flesh off of this skeleton of homosexuality and tell my colleagues of the House some of the facts of nature. I cannot expose all the putrid facts as it would offend the sensibilities of some of you. It will be necessary to skirt some of the edges, and I use certain Latin terms to describe some of these individuals. Make no mistake several thousand, according to police records, are now employed by the Federal Government.
  • Irish||

    Make no mistake several thousand, according to police records, are now employed by the Federal Government.

    YOU PEOPLE ARE EVERYWHERE, JESSE! You are like cockroaches, scattering before the light of Protestantism.

    Obviously gay people went through the same horrible shit as black people back in the day, so I think Goldwater's original point is wrong in that regard. His point is exactly spot on though when you consider that people compare the gay rights movement of today to the civil rights movement.

    That's obviously an absurd comparison, unless the cops start shooting fire-hoses into the crowd at the next gay pride event.

  • ||

    It was different horrible shit. It's like comparing apples and bananas. I just find it frustrating to see people handwave away systematic oppression of a group because it doesn't match another group's experiences (much like I find it aggravating when people try to make the narratives fit).

    I have an aunt who came out of the closet in the early '70s and she's still fucked up by the stuff her family put her through to "make her straight" (my experience with conversion therapy is incredibly benign compared to hers). Part of my mother's hangup about me being gay is that she was so deeply scarred by the embarrassment of having a homosexual sister. The problem was it wasn't just us against them, if you were outed to your immediate community and your family often turned against you.

  • Irish||

    I'm not disagreeing and in no way am I downplaying horrible things that happened to people in the past. I also am not downplaying people who get bullied today, for example. Or your experience of having to go to an anti-gay counselor.

    I just don't like when a 22 year old tries to compare the experience of being gay in 2013 New York to being black in 1964 Birmingham. That's my only point. I probably should have expressed it better.

  • ||

    I know you're not, Irish. I agree that it's incredibly lame that gay rights activists in America* feel the need to hang on to victim status so tightly (hitching your post to the New Left means never having to say things have improved!), but that's mostly because gays are a minority group success story, not because there isn't a history of systematic oppression.

    *Gay rights activists in much of the rest of the world have every right to fly the victim flag, Russia passed laws against advocating for gay rights and activists are regularly beaten to a pulp in the streets of former Soviet countries. Jamaica, parts of Africa, the Middle East (except Israel [except Jerusalem]), and parts of Asia are all extremely hostile with violent crack downs and government sponsored public shaming or violence.

  • Coeus||

    It was different horrible shit. It's like comparing apples and bananas.

    Agreed. I'm not saying there wasn't a lot of bullshit, just that it's not (and wasn't) government dictated and enforced bullshit.

  • ||

    that it's not (and wasn't) government dictated and enforced bullshit.

    Not so much now, although in the town where I live there was a sting operation, a year ago April, on a popular cruising location where 18 were arrested and their mug shots, full names, towns of residence and dates of birth were published in all of the local papers. Whatever you may think of cruising you had a bunch of people who were publicly shamed by vice cops with the full complicity of local news organizations.

    In 2009 a gay bar in Atlanta was raided. The patrons were forced to lie on the ground face down for the duration of the raid because the commanding officer felt gays were "more violent," while the officers made anti-gay comments and took photos on their phones, which they then deleted. The officers were later shown to have lied under oath about the incident.

    If you think that the bullshit wasn't government dictated you missed my link to congressional hearings, the ejection of gay soldiers from the military before and after DADT, constant police harassment and entrapment efforts, and violent raids against gay bars (not glamorous but we're talking about a group that didn't really have churches to have meetings in), and leveraging obscenity laws to prevent transmission of any pro-gay magazines through the mail.

  • Coeus||

    If you think that the bullshit wasn't government dictated you missed my link to congressional hearings...

    I am aware of that, and I didn't phrase my comment properly. What you have there is people corrupting the law in order to go after gays. So it is government enforced.

    But I really don't see government dictated, like the Jim Crow laws were. Laws specifically made to go after a minority group. Your examples are bigots corrupting existing law for their own ends, not the government enforcing bigotry as policy.

    Now, if we went the castration route like Britain did, I was not aware of it. If we did, I retract that second paragraph.

  • ||

    If we're defining that narrowly then yes, there isn't a set of laws that was so holistic in it's position on gays as Jim Crow laws.

    The closest we come would be sodomy laws, still in force (though rarely enforced) until 2003 in 14 states. While some were broad enough to cover heterosexual couples, not all of them were, and there are examples (primarily in the south) where the heterosexual portions were overturned or legislatively repealed but the homosexual portions stayed on the books for another 20 odd years. Also these laws were almost never enforced against straight couples.

    DADT is an example of government policy although the military already filtered out men willing to serve based on sexual orientation since WWII.

    Executive Order 10450 lists "sexual perversion" as a reason for barring people from working in the Federal government. They weren't talking about people into roleplay there.

    Oklahoma and Arkansas (and nearly CA) banned gays from teaching in public schools.

    This does not take into account any number of local ordinances against "lewd behavior" which were written essentially to go gang busters on raiding gay bars and dance halls. Even if they may have been used occasionally enforced against straights.

  • Coeus||

    Oklahoma and Arkansas (and nearly CA) banned gays from teaching in public schools.

    This does not take into account any number of local ordinances against "lewd behavior" which were written essentially to go gang busters on raiding gay bars and dance halls. Even if they may have been used occasionally enforced against straights.

    I would say that these 2 (given that the bolded word is accurate) would be actual examples of government dictated. And as such, I rescind my statement. You have convinced me.

  • ||

    Interesting side note, the school thing was partly driven by Anita Bryant's advocacy. While she remained the face of orange juice in America no gay bar would serve orange juice. If you ordered a screwdriver, you got an Anita Bryant: apple juice and vodka. An unpleasant cocktail for an unpleasant woman.

    Ronald Reagan came out against the proposition to ban homosexual teachers when he was governor.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Up until quite recently, homosexuals in many states gave out serious prison terms (by way of example, at the time of the Lawrence ruling, the sentence for violating Idaho's sodomy law was still five to life). Doesn't getting sent to jail for years qualify as "government dictated bullshit"?

  • Calidissident||

    I think religious demographics largely explain any gap (last time I saw a poll, there's about a 10% difference in support of gay marriage between blacks and whites, which I realize isn't a perfect way to measure homophobia). Black Protestants are more supportive of gay marriage than white Evangelicals. Also, the views of white people vary more from region to region

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

  • $park¥||

    Anyone wanna place odds on Katy Perry's dad offing her?

    "I was at a concert of Katy's where there were 20,000," he said. "I'm watching this generation and they were going at it. It almost looked like church."

    "I stood there and wept and kept on weeping and weeping," he added. "They're loving and worshipping the wrong thing."

  • RBS||

    He does seem a bit off.

  • Brett L||

    Nah. He's found a money train of his own.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Katy's smoking hotness in Obama dresses has a lot to do with it.

    http://www.google.com/search?h.....zYhoL4Awb0

  • $park¥||

    An interesting concept for a restaurant.

    Unlike most restaurants, the food at the Conflict Kitchen is a revolving door of international dishes featuring cuisine from countries with which the United States is in conflict. The name of the restaurant also changes when the cuisine does.

    As Weleski explained to Fox News Latino, when her and her partner started naming the kind of food Pittsburgh lacked, "We realized that we were naming cuisines from countries with which the U.S. government maintains a conflict."

  • AuH20||

    But really, how many ways can you cook a goat?

  • Stormy Dragon||

    That's like saying a steak house or bbq joint is ridiculously because "how many ways can you cook a steer/pig?".

  • Jerry on the boat||

    You order the $10 plate of North Korean greens, you get an empty plate.

  • waffles||

    I've eaten there. If I hadn't moved across the country I'd do it again too.

  • nipplemancer||

    Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49. I'm gonna go get drunk and listen to Slayer.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Cartman mourns with you.

  • nipplemancer||

    Fuck off shreek.

  • Generic Stranger||

    God just wanted an in-person concert.

  • ||

    Lord Mulatto and Heroic Humungus:

    STOP OTHERING ME!!!

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    What happened to the proposed amendment to the Rhode Island SSM bill allowing secular business people to decide for themselves whether to assist at gay weddings?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....67630.html

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    (The RI legislative Web site doesn't yet have the final text of the bill, only a January version without exemptions for secular businesses)

  • Coeus||

    allowing secular business people to decide for themselves whether to assist at gay weddings

    Well, for starters, that goes against the whole reason for the bill.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Sure, but when *I* say that, people get all pissy.

  • Coeus||

    I have gone all over the place on this issue. When it was pointed out to me that my original thoughts of "well, they can marry someone of the opposite sex, just like everyone else" were almost identical to the rationale of the miscegenation laws, I understood that my reasoning was fallacious, and switched my position. But it's become clear since then that the main drive behind this is further interference in property rights. So I'm back to the stance I would have taken when they first made marriage a state function (which was done in order to enforce the miscegenation laws in the first place.

    Get the government the fuck out, and you can call it anything you want, marriage included.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    And here allow me to interpose a slight protest against Reason's coverage - they cover issues of the rights of private businesses all right, but there is little analysis of the specifics of gay-marriage bills so far as they affect the private sector. Even when there's a contentious public debate over whether these bills should exempt the private sector, Reason doesn't seem to notice.

    I would have thought that Reason would have at least mentioned the outcome of the Rhode Island debate over how far to regulate the private sector, so I wouldn't have to guess. They don't seem to think the picky details of these bills are actually important.

  • Calidissident||

    "But it's become clear since then that the main drive behind this is further interference in property rights."

    I don't think that's the case. I think it's two separate, but related issues. Gay rights activists tend to support antidiscrimination laws and other laws that interfere with property rights and freedom of association, but I don't think the reason they also support gay marriage is because they view it as a means to get the former laws (which as we've seen in several states, isn't necessary). Many want both, not one to get the other

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The issues are "related" in the same sense that the two sides of a coin are related. We can perhaps find a welding device delicate enough to separate the two sides, but in ordinary circumstances they are connected.

  • Calidissident||

    They're connected in that both are goals of the gay rights movement. It's like saying ending Jim Crow is the other side of the coin of affirmative action (or antidiscrimination laws) just because both were supported by many in the Civil Rights Movement

  • Coeus||

    but I don't think the reason they also support gay marriage is because they view it as a means to get the former laws (which as we've seen in several states, isn't necessary).

    But it is necessary if you want the church to be forced to play along. And that's where this is heading. Now, don't get me wrong, I completely understand the impulse to stick it to people who call them names, try to exclude them, and blame everything from terrorist attacks to hurricanes on them.

    But the end result is gonna be even more restrictions on property rights. One more step down the slope with extra grease for the next one. And when it's this obvious that this is where it's heading, I don't see how it's libertarian to support it.

  • ||

    Fighting racism with MS Paint Sambo

  • Matrix||

  • ant1sthenes||

    Sad, but if was due to getting a flesh eating disease from a spider bite, it's kind of a metal way to go.

  • Gladstone||

    You know who else engaged in pro-active methods of community justice to deal with Rape Culture and Workplace Harassment?

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Wonderwoman?

  • WomSom||

    Sounds like one heck of a plan to me dude. Wow.

    www.Total-Anon.tk

  • prolefeed||

    From 24/7:

    Ethiopian Blogger Gets 18 Years for Criticizing Government

    Compared to the alternatives of neighboring states, Somalian "Not Really Anarchy, But People Strawman It That Way Anyway" doesn't look quite so bad.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement