Reason Morning Links: McCain Caves on Immigration, NYC Doormen May Strike, Medical Pot Blazes in Colorado


NEXT: Disaster Utopianism

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. New York City doormen prepare to strike.

    Who cares. They all refuse to make that wooshing sound like on Star Trek when they open doors for me anyway.

    1. “Collateral Murder” video was a fraud.
      See what was left out:…;h=035aa

  2. Anyone pretending that the Founding Fathers had a unanimous view on the subject is being misleading, whether Palin or the Plum Line. Massachusetts had an established church until the 1830s, for example, and plenty of of states constitutions had clauses like these from North Carolina’s 1776 Constitution:

    XXXI. That no clergyman, or preacher of the gospels of any denomination, shall be capable of being a member of either the Senate, House of Commons, or Council of State, while he continues in the exercise of the pastoral function.

    XXXII. That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.

    Neither of those really fit into our modern conception of separation of church and state. The first is a type of separation that goes farther than what we do, the second is quite the opposite.

    1. More to the point, clause 31 was to keep preachers out of gov’t, while clause 32 was to keep anti-preachers out of gov’t. So both are about types of separation, and both are mostly opposite to the modern conception of separation.

  3. “Sarah Palin: Not so good with the U.S. history.”

    My head hurts after reading that. Can we pass a law or bill or amendment that requires every person seeking public office to commit the Constitution to memory? They have to be tested on it every six months and may be tested randomly at any point in time. If they fail, they’re tossed out of office. Or shot.

    1. Every time she opens her mouth, an angel kills itself.

      1. As Foghorn Leghorn put it, the women is about as sharp as a wet sack of hair, but it’s not just her.

        1. She’s just a little bit sharper than her audience.
          Which is both frightening and funny.

          1. Oh yah? You’d still fuck me sixty positions from Sunday, ed. Yah!

            1. My ears! It hurts!

    2. This is a fantastic idea.

    3. Are you serious?

    4. Are you serious? Are you serious?

    1. Ol?!

      Y coja el filtro del spam!

      1. Madre de Dios! A bilingual spambot!

    2. Salt in Spaghetti sauces? Are they kidding? My problem with that jar shit, is there’s too much damned sugar in it. Yuck.

      1. Its the only food item that I check the ingredients list before buying. If sugar is added, I dont buy it. Which limits me to a select few brands (and even within them, it varies).

        1. When “tomatoes” is followed by “high fructose corn syrup” you must put…the jar…back. Better yet, make your own and freeze a few portions. Pasta sauce is as easy as it gets.

      2. Buy it from Mezzetta. The Puttanesca is wonderful.

        “Our Puttanesca pasta sauce is for lovers of this unique and traditional recipe. It combines California ripe tomatoes, Kalamata olives, capers, anchovies, fresh garlic, Napa Valley Chardonnay wine, Extra Virgin olive oil, and aromatic herbs. All natural, no preservatives”…..y_Code=nvb

      3. C’mon, we’re not finished with salt yet.

    3. “We can’t just rely on the individual to do something,” said Cheryl Anderson, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health who served on the Institute of Medicine committee.

      And here it is. Our betters can’t rely on us to make the right decisions, so they have to make them for us. We should be thankful.

    4. Salt. Salt. Salt.

  4. Thread jack alert! Today’s Washington Times had an article on DC Voting rights, which also carries some gun rights measures for DC.…..ries-today

    The article mentions that:

    Gun-control advocates are disenchanted with the bill because it would, among other things, loosen restrictions on the legal possession of automatic weapons and so-called sniper rifles.

    I am sure that the reference to automatic weapons is really a reference to semi-automatic rifles that look scary. However, what can they be calling a “sniper rifle” that is not also a perfectly legitimate deer hunting or target rifle? This is a genuine question. Maybe some of the readers that live in the DC metro area can enlighten me.

    1. what can they be calling a “sniper rifle”

      Easy. A so-called “perfectly legitimate deer hunting or target rifle.”

      1. We should have seen this coming.

        Bob : “So what I’m thinking is this – if it isn’t an assault weapon, then it must be a sniper rifle. Right?”
        Alice : “Genius. I’ll call Pelosi with the good news.”

    2. “No civilian needs a rifle that is capable of killing over a kilometer away”

      It is a highly lethalmilitary caliber.

      1. I see what you did there, Ska. Nice.

      2. Kewl rifles

    3. So Lincoln’s Repeater is out?

  5. I don’t think Sarah Palin has a U.S. history problem so much as that some people have a reading comprehension problem. She said that God shouldn’t be separated from the sate, not that church and state shouldn’t be separate.

    1. Folks like Palin and her groupies always confuse officially sanctioned worship with private. Some of the smartest people on FOX News fall into this trap. When the National Day of Prayer was declared unconstitutional recently, it was like Stalin had been dug up and installed in the Oval Office.

    2. I’ve got to agree with Blackadder. In addition I’d say that her statement was extremely vague as well.

      1. Palin’s “vagueness” is just another word for her ignorance. She’s one step removed from a carnival barker or a revivalist.

        1. But you’d still fuck me ed. They don’t call me “The Thrilla from Wasilla” for nothing! Yah!

          1. The joke handle comments say a lot more about the poster than the commenter they are replying to.

            Just thought you should know.

            1. So that would be a ‘yes’?

              1. There would have to be a ball gag involved, and at least a gallon of scotch.

                1. Oh yah, ed! I knew you’d come around! But I’m a tough natural girl ed. I can crack watermelons with these sinewy thighs. You’ll need that ball gag to keep from breaking your teeth when your in the Sarah Trap. Yah!

                    1. I already had my period. No red wings for you! Yah! Ya like that?

                    2. I dunno, man, “sinewy thighs” is pretty good.

    3. What exactly is the difference between separation of church and state, and separation of god and state? In her view, presumably there’s only one god, and it has to be worshiped a certain way (or do you think she’d be OK with sacrificing bulls to appease it?) So how is that not a religion?

      1. What exactly is the difference between separation of church and state, and separation of god and state?

        Easy. The first is possible; the second, impossible since God is everywhere.

        1. That is more or less what I was thinking. If God is real, then no one is going to do a damn thing about whether God is separate from the state or not (whatever that might mean).

      2. What exactly is the difference between separation of church and state, and separation of god and state?

        A church is an institution, an association of believers, that kind of thing.

        A god is something else entirely.

      3. What exactly is the difference between separation of church and state, and separation of god and state?

        Perhaps it’s similar to the difference between believing in God and going to church. The one does not necessitate the other.

    4. You lost me, Blackadder. How is assuming the existence of “God” and icorporating him/her/it into the state going to be accomplished without religion?

      1. “Religion is but the wreckage of human attempts to tame God.”

        -Ken Thorley

  6. “Greg Craig” of “Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom”?

    You can’t fool *me*, Radley! This is from The Onion.

  7. I think what Sarah was saying is that legislation should be made with a healthy fear of God. While I disagree about legislating morality, Christians believe that their beliefs should influence all of their actions, so it is not surprising. This has nothing to do with congress establishing a state religion or banning any religions, so the plum line fails again.

    OTOH, maybe she’s right. Odin’s vengeance is mighty.

    1. I disagree about legislating morality

      I think only morality should be legislated. But, then again, I think only a tiny subset of it should be (that subset that harms others).

      Any act that is moral and/or indifferent to God, man has no reason to ban.

      I cant think of anything more evil than a government banning a moral act. Okay, maybe requiring an immoral act.

      1. Exactly, except since there is no reason to ban a moral act, there is no reason to legislate on it, because it already exists.

        Proof of my other claim.

        1. However, the only proper course for legislation is to ban certain immoral acts. So, the ONLY business of legislation is morality.

      2. Whose morality, robc? Some Islamic tenets require punishing women for the “crime” of simply talking to a man she is not married to/related to, for instance. Do we allow that here in America, codified under law?

        Do we go so far as to make sodomy between heterosexual married couples, illegal?

        Where would it stop?

        1. I already answered that, read the parenthetical.

    2. “Odin’s vengeance is mighty.”

      And if you don’t believe it, go ask the residents of Iceland.

      1. FTW

      2. If their economy wasn’t totally fucked, the Icelanders would probably be having a good laugh. They seem to be about the least affected in Europe by the volcano.

    3. That’s a non sequitur mr simple. Any law is based on a moral premise, be it ensuring that acts like murder, rape, theft, and fraud are codified and prohibited under the threat of severe punishment whereas “lesser” laws try to equate the level of severity with an appropriate consequence. What gets people’s dander thrown about is when multiple moral codes are trying to codify a set of laws where not every group’s moral code (or lack thereof) will recognize the validity of a particular or set of laws.

      And then the phenomenon of “defining deviancy down,” as elucidated by the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan addressed where questioning the need of a law arises when a society no longer wishes to obey it. Whether the disobedience has merit due to the laws valid immorality (slavery, free speech, etc.) or it’s current applicability due to society’s changing values (drug use, prostitution, consensual acts “crimes”) is open for debate. I believe this lends weight to all laws having sunset provisions written in, thus making laws that are no longer applicable to society easier to nullify and remove. It would also force congresscritters to be abreast of laws and they may be less inclined to pass new, more intrusive laws where perfectly good laws are still on the books.

      1. It’s not a non sequiter. Perhaps I should have said a specific morality to be more clear. I thought everyone would know what I meant, but I forgot this board is populated by pedantic, nit-picking assholes. Morality is what people believe to be right and wrong. Most people get these beliefs from the religion they were raised in. Many of these beliefs are incompatible with other people’s moral codes. A law should not be enacted just because a group of people think someone shouldn’t be doing something (vague enough?) if that action harm’s no one else. Laws against murder, fraud, etc, can be justified from a property rights stance and the belief that you own yourself and not just because some guy said it a long time ago.

        1. But, property rights is a form or morality. Hence, legislating morality.

          1. Thanks robc!

            I forgot this board is populated by pedantic, nit-picking assholes.

            Maybe people should be pedantic, nitpicky assholes when it comes to enacting potential bad law. Perhaps fewer would be passed.

            1. Yeah, “legislating morals” and “state rights” are my two areas of pedantry that I cant leave alone.

              All legislation should involve morals. States dont have rights, they have powers.

              Im going to be an asshole about both.

              1. How about “state autonomy”, then?

                1. Whats wrong with “Hey Feds, you cant do that, that is a state power, not a federal power”?

                  1. I want to make sure they have to use the word power. It may be semantical, but its the equivalent of not withholding taxes and having everyone write a check each month.

                    1. also, autonomy isnt exactly what Im referring to. States arent autonomous, they are subsidiary to the federal government in certain areas.

                    2. What I mean is, the fed can’t dictate to the states on, say, mandatory health insurance. Or speed limits tied to highway funds. Et cetera.

                      Otherwise, why have state legislatures? Give Obama & Co. complete control over them.

                      Somewhere, MNG, Tony, and Chad are salivating at that last paragraph.

        2. The problem with using the term “morality” is that it is fairly undefined. It might be one of the more abused terms in human language.

          I don’t personally believe in any sort of external generator of right and wrong of the core values that build a basis by which humans co-exist peacefully in an arena of honest action other than the right of self-ownership. Everyone believes in self-ownership in some form, even if it’s so that they can willingly give that life over to God or some other deity.

          Everything that falls outside self-ownership is a crust, a scab, that forms on the inner core of morality. I think of it as an emergent standard generated by the ethical choices made by individuals in your overculture. And some believe them to be the dictates of a Supreme Being that cover extra-self-ownership concerns. However derived, none of these “generated” morals should never be laws.

          1. Saccharin Man, as much as I marvel at your creative depravity, it is outmatched by your serious prose.

            I take it you identify strongly with Locke’s view of Natural Law then.

            1. I have a troubled relationship with the theory of natural law. While the surface reading–“life, liberty, and property”–is spot on with regard to the rights defined by self-ownership, I find the evidence for their self-evident nature to be insufficient. Self-evident is a much abused term as well, and is often used as a shortcut to end argument and inquiry. By asserting that something is self-evident, you are saying that any disagreement about the principle or its self-evident nature is wrong from inception.

              I don’t find self-ownership self-evident at all. Far, far to many people can not grasp the totality of it (as opposed to bits and pieces) to make that claim. The only way to make self-ownership evident is by rigorously respecting other people’s self-ownership, defending your own from concrete threats, and defending the rights of self-ownership for those under your freely given protection.

              1. THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!

              2. Locke’s view, as I understand it, is also dependent on consent. Consent of the individual v. consent of a limited government after consent to be governed is given.

                Locke also suggested, since in his view Natural Law eminates from a “supreme being” or “higher authority” the individual is precluded from taking his own life.

                It’s good stuff, like you said, but I also have problems reconciling his argument.

              3. I don’t find self-ownership self-evident at all.

                I always thought of it as a poetic way of saying that self-ownership is to be an immutable first principle of a civilized society.

                But I do have a problem when people insist that you need God to have natural rights. All you need is the Golden Rule, or the Non-Aggression Principle, which I suppose is probably equivalent.

              4. My usual reading of “self-evident” translates it automatically to “it is evident to me, myself”. The speaker is doing some hand waving to disguise an axiom they don’t want questioned or examined.

        3. Got one! Look at the size of that baby, she’s a keeper!

  8. The purpose of the First Amendment is to protect religion from the power of the state, not to protect the state from religion.

    1. It’s definitely a two-way street.


    Awesome volcano pictures.

    1. Where’s Warty with his metal music videos?

  10. I don’t get politicians. McCain has God knows what health issues thanks to being a POW. He has a smoking hot wife and millions of dollars. He is never going to be President. Why does he even want to be a Senator anymore letalone consider it worth revealing himself to be a complete hypocrite? Our entire political class on both sides really is craven.

    1. He loves power, obviously. It’s what motivates the majority of politicians.

      1. I have never had it, so I guess I don’t understand its attraction.

        1. It’s pretty cool.

          1. Agreed.

            1. Absolutely. I’ve never had power, except by proxy. I worked for the President of a multi-billion dollar corporation a few years ago. I remember asking a women — a hawt woman — to perform a task for my boss. You could clearly sense the fear she was experiencing over the possibility that she might not perform up to my boss’s expectation. That palpable fear made her sexier by several multioles.

              1. multioles = multiples.

                1. I knew a girl like that.

                  1. Cadavers don’t count Saccharin Man.

                    1. You SugarFree’s the link, dude…

                      fortunately, I’d imagine.

              2. That palpable fear made her sexier by several multioles.

                You find fear sexually attractive in a woman? What are you – some kind of psycho rapist?

      2. I think he’s still trying to prove his worth to his parents and their friends, albeit that they all may be dead. And we have no way of knowing whether dead people pay att’n to the affairs of the living, or whether there’s an entirely separate politics of the non-living that engrosses them.

    2. Power, John. Unmitigated power. The most insidious and consuming thing in mankind’s history, IMO.

      Remember Lord John Acton.

      1. One of the reasons why Eisenhower is one of my favorite people in history is that he said that the day he left command of Allied Forces in Europe was the happiest day of his entire life because it felt so good not to have the lives of millions of people riding on his every decision. That was a man who deserved to have power. I can’t imagine anyone in power today saying such a thing, which explains a lot of our problems.

        And of course add George Washington to the list to. He left command of the Army as soon as the war was over and went home to Mount Vernon. And he left the Presidency after two terms more than happy to leave the job behind.

        1. I totally agree wrt Eisenhower. I wish more presidents would follow his lead and build roads and work on their golf game.

        2. I’ve read here in these posts since I have been coming round these parts the consistent meme “trust not those who seek authority” and to a great degree I believe that. Committing The Iron Law to memory has also helped revamp my thought process a bit as well.

          I remember in undergrad history class a rather heated class debate about Julius Caesar regarding his assassination. Over half of the class, all things being equal argued that he should not have been murdered. The rest (myself included) argued that, while murder is immoral, the end justified the means as Caesar had no legal restriction placed on his rule. I invoked Lord John Acton as part of my contribution to the discussion. The majority of the class argued since he contributed so much good to the Roman Empire, he should have been permitted to keep on doing good. We see this today with bad law enacted protecting the “right people” and it’s so frustrating to explain to others “Do you not see the consequences of this, the potential disaster that lies ahead?”

          1. In Ceasar’s defense, the people who killed him were just as depraved as they claimed him to be. Ceasar only crossed the Rubricon after his opponents made it clear they planned to execute or exile him as soon as his command was up. The Roman Republic had been killed before Ceasar.

          2. If the assassination of Caesar had returned Rome to a republic, you might have a point.

            1. The potential was there to revert back to a republic. But as John astutely pointed out, the Senate was already corrupt. The citizenry could have elected more ethical senators, but didn’t.

              History: Same stage, Different Actors. Rinse, Wash, Repeat.

          3. But how about JC’s own view of it? Do you think that after being dead for a while, he wished he hadn’t been killed, or had changed his mind and decided that early retirement was a good thing that he unfortunately had to be pushed into?

        3. Maybe it had something to do with the fact that these men had actually seen the bodies of those who had died as a result of their decisions.

          It’s much easier to be a politician when you don’t know the actual consequences of your decisions.

  11. EU chief declares: Vacationing a human right:

    The European Union has declared travelling a human right, and is launching a scheme to subsidize vacations with taxpayers’ dollars for those too poor to afford their own trips.

    Antonio Tajani, the European Union commissioner for enterprise and industry, proposed a strategy that could cost European taxpayers hundreds of millions of euros a year, The Times of London reports.

    “Travelling for tourism today is a right. The way we spend our holidays is a formidable indicator of our quality of life,” Mr. Tajani told a group of ministers at The European Tourism Stakeholders Conference in Madrid on April 15. Mr. Tajani was appointed to his post by Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.

    The plan — just who gets to enjoy the travel package has yet to be determined — would see taxpayers footing some of the vacation bill for seniors, youths between the ages of 18 and 25, disabled people, and families facing “difficult social, financial or personal” circumstances. The disabled and elderly can also be accompanied by one other person. The EU and its taxpayers are slated to fund 30% of the cost of these tours, which could range from youth exploring abandoned factories and power plants in Manchester to retirees taking discount trips to Madrid, all in the name of cultural appreciation.

    “The commission is literally considering paying people to go on holiday,” Mats Persson, of pro-reform think-tank Open Europe, told Britain’s News of the World. “In this economic climate, it’s astonishing that the EU wants to bribe people with cheap holidays.”…..story.html

    1. I read that. How long before we have a cage match between this guy and the AGW religounists who think that everyone should have a carbon ration card and binge flying is the greatest threat to the universe?

      It just shows how absolutely insane modern socialists have become. Vacationing is a human right, unless of course it increases your carbon footprint.

    2. Today’s going to be bad. I don’t know what’s more batshit, the salt-reduction or this insanity. Driiiiiink.

    3. I could use a vacation myself. I think I’ll go to Bolivia tonight.

      1. Just have a colleague prescribe what ye need for what ails ye. No need for the expensive airfare.

        1. Heh. Can’t write a script for a romantic date ending in wild, steaming filthy, dirty, mind numbing bliss.

          1. “Boy-being meets girl-being under a silvery moon which then explodes for no adequately explored reason.”


            1. If only it were that simple Saccharin Man.

      2. It is enrapturing to have a conversation, while sitting in a cafe. The last time, I had a discussion about birds and I was just wistfully thinking about a mythological man bird. It does not have a name but it is fathomable.

        1. I don’t know what this comment means, but I like it. I like it a lot.

          1. Indeed. Poetic, isn’t it?

          2. and art have a lot of commonality. Don’t you agree?

            1. Yes. Yes I do.

              1. d’accord

    4. Not to umm ahh, let’s not, godwin this bitch, but you know who else thought vacations were a right for workers. Not that I would ever, umm you know, imply, like … just sayin is all.

      1. No. Not you, cap l. Never. Inconceivable.

        1. Come on now, you know that I never godwin for anything other than satirical purposes.

          I hate hyperbole and the people that use it so much. People who use hyperbole are as bad, no worse, than nazis, commies, the french, and scientologists all rolled into one. If we employ hyperbole, then the terrorists have won.

          1. Problem with hyperbole is it’s like obscenity…you know it when you see it. Hyperbole for some may just be another day at the office for others.

            That and facts are boring and passe` they don’t sell papers to cause movements to rise.

            1. Fuck obscenity!

              Kinda off topic, but I saw an ad yesterday for a republican running for congress. He repeatedly called his opponent a “Liberal” (scare quotes), then accused him of trying to cut medicare and leave the elderly out in the streets(?!).
              Maybe it is on topic, as I think that was a bit hyperbolish of him.

              Remember that shit when you go into the voting booth, hoping for “gridlock”.

              1. Noted cap l. Trust me, I know. it’s exceptionally disingenuous pandering at it’s worst.

    5. Hmm… I’m going to have to ponder on the sage words of Mr. Tajani.

  12. John McCain does a 180 on immigration, backs Arizona’s strict bill allowing local police to arrest anyone not carrying identification.

    Any way the wind blows. That is just so maverickish.

    1. Halt I zay! Your papers, pleaze! I zee everything is in order, you may continue.

  13. the European Union commissioner for enterprise and industry

    “You keep using those words, but they do not mean what you think they mean.”

  14. I vaguely remember discussing this topic quite a while back:

    from The Wall Street Journal

    The Supreme Court, voting 8-1, struck down a federal law aimed at banning videos that show graphic violence against animals, saying it violates the right to free speech. The justices threw out the criminal conviction of Robert Stevens of Pittsville, Va., who was sentenced to three years in prison for videos he made about pit bull fights.

    The law was inspired by so-called crush videos, where women kill chicks or mice, but was written far more broadly to outlaw depictions of any animal cruelty that is unlawful. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the court, said the measure stretched too far. Justice Samuel Alito was the lone dissenter, saying the harm caused by the underlying criminal acts outweighed any value of the depictions.

  15. I just read the complaint by the SEC against Goldman Sacks. If it’s true, it’s fraud with a capitol “F”. There’s no gray area, and no wiggle room. GS flat out lied to investors, and misrepresented their product. Anybody who can’t see this must be sucking Blankfien’s cock, literally.…..-mortgages

  16. Samuel Alito was the lone dissenter, saying the harm caused by the underlying criminal acts outweighed any value of the depictions.

    Wait- what?

  17. New York City doormen prepare to strike.

    Must be one Hell of a union, or else one fucked up set of union protection laws in that state for those guys not to know they are pushing their luck.

  18. New York Doorman: Well, yeah. Can my employer really spare the two minutes it would take to train my replacement?

  19. I wouldn’t want to live in a doorman building anyway. Half the time there’s no one at the desk. Plus, I can handle my own packages. And a nice deadbolt provides much better security.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.