If They Say There's a Big Crowd At the Skeptics' Conference, Should You Believe Them?


If only we could harness collective critical thinking for peaceful use…

I'm acting as Reason's chief glad-hander at the Amazing Meeting, a large gathering of self-described skeptics affiliated with the James Randi eduational foundation. We're at the South Point Hotel and Casino, at the desert end of Las Vegas Boulevard. The skeptics say they've got more than a thousand people disbelieving together. Catch the fever!

Skeptics unbound!

I've been warned that the skeptics,  who don't believe in this libertarian cult, would be hostile in their response. I have been trying to highlight common ideas through slogans like "There's no i in Rand!" and a pirate-themed display table complete with (gold standard) pieces of eight. So far the only negative comments have been over the paucity of non-male, non-Euro faces on the Reason Cruise roster. Since I have no decent answer to that, I'll note that this is some of the hottest intellectual beefcake ever to sail the Main. Here's a satisfied customer checking out the merchandise now:

The Cruise: like a conference except you can't leave.

Speaking of beefcake and merchandise, have I mentioned that I am the official gladhander at this event, which is being held at the South Point Casino at the desert end of Las Vegas Boulevard? Come by the table, grab some swag and say hello.

Good fun all around. Guests include godless heavyweights like Michael Shermer and Richard Dawkins (who braved death at some date in the future when he called Islam "….potentially violent….."). James Randi was only able to get a smattering of applause for his Thank-G-d-we-finally-have-an-intelligent-president line during a speech, and that was only after a pronounced Nobody-eats-until-I-get-some-applause-for-that pause. And there's skeptical drinking.

So if you're at this event, at sorta-nearby FreedomFest, or just a Nevadan looking to exercise your right to gamble and sit up at night wondering if there's a Dog up there, please drop by.

NEXT: The Defector

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. “South Point Casino”. Libermaterians party poorly.

    1. No corporate or government “sponsors”.
      Everybody would party poorly if they had to do it on their own dime.

    2. Uh, it isn’t a libertarian party…

      1. And even if it were a libertarian party, could anyone expect to meet philosophically consistent attendees? Sadly, that kind of thing occurs only in fiction, not that it couldn’t happen in real life. But we are years away from that kind of reality. We can only hope to get close in our own lifetimes.

        1. If it were a Libertarian Party, there would be fewer seats filled and they would be dressed weirder.

          1. And you would hear strange “Soylent Green” jokes and odd references to something called Kahn.

            1. Also things like the spice, and life water.

            2. Anyway, “skeptics” are rather like agnostics. They doubt, but they are generally unwilling to assert the evidence of their own senses.

              1. That’s just ignorant. Skeptics are merely less credulous that the average idiot who thinks an open mind equals accepting all assertations of fact as having equal validity.

                We are not gullible, we require evidence (proof is preferred, but strong evidence is not to be ignored) to accept a premise or theory and are more than willing to adopt a different position when the facts warrant it.

                True skeptics are wary of his own conclusions. We know we are not infallible but most importantly we know nobody is.

                1. Are you sure about that?

          2. So you’re familiar with Star Child?

              1. Probably on purpose, right?

              2. When I am gone (being the sun) there is nothing.


                While you can.

            1. That’s “Starchild”.

              1. Is this a Clarke reference or a George Clinton reference?

  2. So far the only negative comments have been over the paucity of non-white, non-Euro faces on the Reason Cruise roster.

    So the roster is kind of like the crowd at the conference?

      1. I was thinking that as well.

    1. It is pretty funny how the pastiest, richest, laziest, waspiest, priveleged SOBs are usually the first to bitch about race these days. And the poor. It reminds me of that scene in The Aviator where DiCaprio metaphorically bitch-slaps the entire Hepburn family with a fact or two.

  3. Since I have no decent answer to that,

    “What the mother-shitting-fuck is wrong with you?” is the least indecent response I’d be able to summon at a goddamn white-people convention.

    1. “There’s no i in Rand!”

      I like that one. Give Matt some props there.

      1. However, there is an eye in Rand.

    2. You could have went with, ‘Don’t you know? We are dropping by the Virgin Isles, picking up a gaggle of party girls, and it is gonna be all caf? au lait and sweet mocha delight! Or, you could go to an academic conference on paternalistic oppression and see how far that gets you.’

      1. bleh, ‘patriarchal oppression’. The other is more like spanking ass and having her call you ‘daddy’, which is probably a better choice than the cruise, and TBH was on my mind.

    3. How about, “who would you suggest?” Then you’d be guaranteed to learn something (either [A] who the questioner thinks is an interesting libertarian speaker but not a white guy, or [B] that the questioner is just bitching for its own sake).

  4. Boring minds!

  5. What happens in Vegas is usually somewhat more interesting than this.

    1. One would hope.

  6. Atheists are not skeptical at all on the subject of religion. True skeptics would be agnostic or heathen.

    1. Would a “Santa atheist” proclaim that he or she isn’t really sure about Santa?

      1. Bad at logic and metaphysics

        you must be a hit with the ladies (seriously, they are bad at logic too)

        1. Care to be more specific?
          Why should I grant the myth of a god any more weight than the myth of Santa Claus?

        2. Not holding as true something for which there is no evidence, far from being inconsistent, is the very essence of skepticism.

          The fallacy is in equating the positions of belief and non-belief in the absence of evidence and then claiming that without evidence you can’t choose between the two. Nothing could be more wrong-headed as Ron L’s Santa comment demonstrates. It leads to the logical absurdity that you must be agnostic towards any crazy claim that you can’t disprove.

          The default position of a skeptic is disbelief; the burden of proof is on the claimant.

          1. “The default position of a skeptic is disbelief; the burden of proof is on the claimant”
            I seem to have caused confusion: This statement *is* my position.
            I am not agnostic about either Santa Claus or god; my gnosticism says simply the default is non-existence absent the evidence for existence.

    2. …you realize what you’re typing right?

    3. Until such time as someone proves that a thing exists to my satisfaction, I do not believe that thing exists. Ergo, a-theist.

      1. This is one of those times when word position matters, because I think this comes down to the subtle difference between “I do not believe God exists” and “I believe God does not exist”. The former is a negative expression of believe, the latter an expression of negative belief.

        1. I do not see that “subtle difference” at all.

            1. I’d say the difference is subtle enought to be inconsequential.

        2. You make a good point – and it’s not generally lost on most “atheists” today. For instance, I define myself as ‘atheist agnostic’ – i.e., I don’t believe in a God (i.e. I’m not a theist), but I can’t say that I *know* that there is no god (so my position with regards to knowledge is ‘agnostic’). Some people still like to define “atheist” to mean “Someone who specifically states that God does not exist”, but I hardly ever hear that in the atheist circles I run in.

  7. So-called skeptics calling Obama “intelligent” make me sick. It wasn’t like Bush’s IQ was probably higher than Kerry’s? Yeah ‘intelligence’ indeed. Fuck that shit. A common-sense salt-of-the-earth guy who left citizens alone would be gazillion times better than welfare-warfare statists we’ve been cursed with forever

    1. He meant intelligent only in the popular sense of “articulate” I hope.

      1. Given it was Randi, I’m afraid your hopes are dashed.

      2. He meant intelligent only in the popular sense of “articulate” I hope.

        And clean?

    2. Contemplationist|7.9.10 @ 8:37PM|#
      “So-called skeptics calling Obama “intelligent” make me sick….”

      Paul Kurtz finally ended my subscriptions to SCICOP pubs by his silly comments.
      Both of the pubs had gone from stapled pulp journal-sized issues to full-color, type-set magazines. The web was exploding with viewpoints left, right, libertarian and outright whacko.
      And then Kurtz writes an editorial decrying the concentration of media under few, (corporate!) owners with the innuendo that government should do something about this!
      When the renewal letter came, it went in the circular file.

      1. Corporate consolidation of the media doesn’t concern you? Wait, you consider it a good thing, enough to cancel a subscription over? Man your government hate is indistinguishable from corporate cocksucking. Yay freedom!

        But you guys also want to give the Internet over to those sainted media conglomerates too, right? It matters that our sources of news are becoming increasingly owned by a few. The business of a corporation and the job of journalism are not and never will be the same thing. Besides, the Internet has done nothing but give wackos a community where they can be wackos together.

        1. Tony|7.9.10 @ 9:53PM|#
          “Corporate consolidation of the media doesn’t concern you?”
          Only as a lefty fantasy, does it concern me. The rest of your whinging is nothing other than an admission of your ignorance.
          And BTW, you’re a brain-dead asshole.

        2. “Besides, the Internet has done nothing but give wackos a community where they can be wackos together.”

          At first I was going to say that’s a sweeping generalization. But then again, I think you’re right.

        3. There are so many factual and logical errors in your comment it is amazing.

          This consolidation that’s occurring in the print media alone. It’s no surprise to see consolidation of a contracting industry. To decry this consolidation and the implied “information control” that comes with it during the greatest expansion of information flow in the history of the world is beyond bizarre.

          So you realize that being a journalist is not the same thing as creating a finished media product, whether newspaper, radio, TV, or web. Congratulations. It takes a lot more than a journalist to create any kind of media. Being a “business” is of course different from a “job”. Did you also know that the job of an editor, typesetter, cameraman, etc. isn’t the same as the business of a corporation either, though in a good corporation they will all have common goals. But I’m glad you got your little “I hate corporations” spleen vented for today.

          Of course you didn’t address the comment about the government involvement in fixing consolidation. If consolidation is bad, why is centralized government control good? It’s the ultimate consolidation! I know, government is magic and you worship in its temple. You should go there and leave the rest of us alone.

          1. Careful, there. This is Tony.
            Tony /= logic.


  9. the paucity of non-white, non-Euro faces on the Reason Cruise roster

    Apparently the paucity of females goes without saying. But you should have mentioned that a native American cryptid has signed up for the cruise.

    1. Heh heh heh heh, good one, Tulpa.

  10. OK this makes a lot of sense.


  11. Randi is astonishingly credulous of typical liberal pap. A real blind spot of his.

    1. I’d bet that he and Shermer make a real good pair at the bar in the evening. I’d love to be a fly on the wall.
      Randi is among those who first publicized a skeptical approach to what you read, see or hear about psychics, but he hasn’t applied the same standards to political economy.

    2. What’s more, almost none of these dimbulbs are skeptical of the greentard religion and its main sacrament, Global Warming. Gaialessness is not as acceptable as godlessness to these fools and skepticism is not “scientific” and therefore not permissible if it goes against left-wing causes, you see.

      1. Since I dumped the scrips, I’ve missed the current causes, but your comment isn’t surprising.
        (Hey! Tony! Is this evidence of “corporate control”?)
        Gaia got a drubbing some time back, but I have no doubt neo-Gaia isn’t getting the same sort of examination.

    3. Randi is a great man, but he did spend a lot of his life as a Canadian. Just sayin’.

      1. Well, not really. He beat it to the US pretty quickly.

      2. Canadians didn’t jump into Vietnam or Iraq on the sayso of their leaders. You were saying?

  12. If you think Michael Shermer is such a heavyweight, why did you spell his name wrong?

    And that last alt-text should be the official motto of the cruise.

  13. Yeah, that alt-text is the best so far this year.

  14. “James Randi was only able to get a smattering of applause for his Thank-G-d-we-finally-have-an-intelligent-president…”

    Well, fuck him.

  15. So far the only negative comments have been over the paucity of non-male, non-Euro faces on the Reason Cruise roster.

    I.e., pretty much like most skeptics conference rosters except for the token Middle Easterner who has turned his/her back on Islam.

  16. If someone thinks Obama is intelligent, they need to learn how to read a fucking book.

  17. Atheists tend to be pompous assholes.

    Atheists, bible thumpers, same kind of crazy. They just want control. Total control.

  18. “James Randi was only able to get a smattering of applause for his Thank-G-d-we-finally-have-an-intelligent-president line during a speech . . .”

    “Thank G-d” – I wasn’t aware that Randi was Orthodox Jewish.

    Randi’s statement about Obama is not only non-skeptical, it is strict, will-to-believe credulity held against the weight of the evidence. And Randi wasn’t just using the term ‘intelligent’ in a morally-neutral sense, but in the sense that finally we have a smart guy with the knowledge and the will to confront America’s problems. Prior to November 2008, there *might* have been some excuse for such naive sentiments, but the evidence of the last year and a half would, one would think, have decisively refuted the ideas that President Obama is noticably smarter than GW Bush.

    And I liked the sign “Keep Your Rosaries Out of My Ovaries.” As someone who has been known to pray a few rosaries outside abortion clinics, I would like to venture a comment or two on this slogan. These skeptics should be even-handed if they’re going to deplore religious people taking part in the abortion debate, and that means they should denounce the Clergy Consultation Service, an outfit of ministers and rabbis who, prior to Roe v. Wade, not only worked to legalize abortion but made legally-dubious abortion referrals for pregnant women, circumventing and defying the law in the name of religion.

    1. And, if you look at the link I gave, you will find that pro-abortion religious forces are still active – the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice has generated sermons, pamphlets and so forth on such topics as the Biblical perspective on fetal personhood.

  19. I find these skeptics to rather gullible. They seem to accept a lot of things without a willingness to even examine other, more plausible, explanations.

  20. I totally agree with what everyone is saying. James Randi is a fool, illiterate, not really a skeptic, and pays no attention at all to politics. The proof? Well, he and I disagree on political issues.

    1. You sound a little defensive, Joe_D. Why that would be, I could only hazard to guess (HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!).

      1. What’s your apparently hilarious guess?

        1. You use to be Randi’s stage assistant as a kid, and you are still quite fond of that suit for organ grinder monkeys he use to make you wear even though your friends said it made you look like a dweeb?

          1. Shit!, I think Randi just lost $1 million.

  21. I think some skeptics go down lefty street out of an aversion against the religious right. To be honest, I think just assuming that the “reality-based community” is remotely skeptical or rational is quite credulous. Nor does it make much sense to reject limited government and the focus on individual rights more prevalent on the right (and much more prevalent among libertarians) just because all of the Christian stuff bothers skeptics.

    1. Not to say that I don’t like a lot of what Randi and others do. Nor that they should embrace Creationism or any other nonsense. But some of them–Phil Plait comes to mind (who I like when he doesn’t beat the political drum)–are just as religiously left-wing as the people they’re criticizing are plain religious. And both want to force the rest of us to behave in “acceptable” ways.

    2. I think their belief in the ability of big gov’t to benefit society stems more from their belief that good people working together can achieve good ends. They tend to think if you have the right people (intelligent, humanist, skeptical) making the decisions, then good intentions won’t lead to unintended bad consequences.

      The skeptic movement is mostly liberal, but there are a lot of libertarians there too. I think the division breaks down to what is valued higher: libertarians value political freedom over almost anything else; liberals value economic equality and lack of risk over political freedom.

      1. It still annoys me. If you aren’t skeptical about humans with power over others, you’re missing a critical skeptical circuit, I think.

        1. I agree, but is this really a matter of principle, or just degree? The liberals think that the different branches of gov’t can check each other, and primarily that democracy ensures that gov’t won’t get too out of whack. I haven’t met one who wants a dictatorship (I haven’t met Sean Penn), which would be the extreme of trust in leaders.

          And if you’re not holed up in a shack in the wilderness, drinking only rain water and eating only what you kill… then you are less skeptical of people in power than some are.

          1. The liberals think that the different branches of gov’t can check each other,

            I don’t think that’s accurate. Left-liberals want the government to do more; checks and balances are generally anathema to them. See, for instance, FDR’s New Deal being struck down, or how the NYT routinely berates whichever branch is standing in the way of the progressive agenda.

            and primarily that democracy ensures that gov’t won’t get too out of whack.

            No one who has any historical understanding of democracy would make that argument. Democracy is Socrates being put to death, Adolf Hitler coming to power, Jim Crow laws — the tyranny of the majority. What keeps gov’t excesses at bay is republicanism, democracy bound by the rule of law — as they put it in The Patriot, a thousand dictators one mile away aren’t any better than one dictator a thousand miles away.

        2. It has simply never occurred to them to apply their skeptical thinking skills to politics and government. Goes to show you can be smart as hell, but have glaring blind spots.

  22. If you desire amusement, go to the JREF web site “support us” page. Scroll down the right-hand column and you’ll find that Randi charges his “skeptical” acolytes up to $25,000 for personal access. While his followers are skeptical of gypsy fortune tellers and other easy targets, they are perhaps all too credulous of their Great Leader. Who after all is–what–a former hack Vegas magician?

    1. Do you have a point here, or just a straw-grasp?
      Randi asks for contributions in the hopes of accomplishing certain goals.
      Those “fortune tellers” charge for spouting bull-bleep.
      I’ll bet you knew the difference but were hoping no one would notice.
      And in what sort of paranormal bull-bleep do you specialize?

      1. Ron L.: Over the years, I’ve found it impossible to converse with true believers, whether they genuflect before plaster saints or “enlightened” magicians. IMHO Amazing Randi has a good thing going on there. More power to him. Keep drinkin’ that Kool-Aid.

        1. doc paranormal|7.10.10 @ 4:00PM|#
          “Ron L.: Over the years, I’ve found it impossible to converse with true believers,…”
          So rather than answer, you project?
          Sniff, sniff…
          Yep, woo.

        2. O……….M……….G………..
          Would this be your quote?
          “Do you have an open mind? Are you prepared to believe the unbelievable? Are you ready to have all your cherished beliefs shattered like a bullet through a plate glass window? Unless you can honestly answer “yes,” you should stop reading RIGHT NOW.”

          Somehow, it looks like Randi’s mil is safe.

        3. “Over the years, I’ve found it impossible to converse with true believers”

          This is interesting, because, at least in real life (as opposed to online), I have a very good time conversing with true believers. Except for the few who can’t get past the “Motherfucker, you’re an immoral asshat if you disagree with me!!!!” stuff, true believers are often wonderful to talk to.

          I guess the two big rules are: 1) keep a sense of humor about it and 2) argue against the best possible interpretation of what the other person is saying (i.e., don’t assume he’s immoral or an idiot).

          But this is all just my nature I think. Is there just some personality thing with people who can’t communicate with true believers?… how to they see it?

          1. Joe, I think doc’s definition of ‘true believers’ is, well, somewhat near the margins.
            See below.

  23. For immediate release:

    Contact: e-mail:

    Million Ghost March To Defy Logic.

    Clairvoyants, mediums and psychics worldwide are invited to contact spirits in a major nonviolent protest of an annual convention of skeptics taking place at the South Point Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas July 8-11, 2010.

    “For too long, paranormal skeptics have mocked people with a curiosity about ghosts, spirits and the afterlife. The Million Ghost March has been conceived as an opportunity to turn the tables on these unimaginative naysayers. It is a march to defy logic,” said Doc Paranormal, Adjunct Professor Without Portfolio at Edgar Allan Poe Community College, the event’s chief sponsor.

    “The first Million Ghost March was held in 2008 during a prior skeptic’s convention,” continued Prof. Paranormal, “A rousing success, it raised awareness of the relentless assault on the human imagination being conducted by brutal dictators, religious zealots and paranormal skeptics.

    “Due to ever-increasing attacks on creativity and unconventional thought, the students and faculty of Edgar Allan Poe Community College felt it was necessary to launch a second Million Ghost March.”

    (EAPCC is a gathering place for non-traditional ideas and people formed at the request of Mr. Poe’s deceased spirit, which was contacted during an otherwise routine s?ance. Full details are available online at Ask Doc Paranormal, the school publication.)

    Perhaps fearful of another Million Ghost March, skeptics are holding this year’s convention at the little-known South Point Hotel & Casino. Called the Amazing Meeting 8, it will feature guests including a John Lennon impersonator, a “skeptical songster,” a juggler, Penn & Teller’s pianist and “comedian and magician Mac King.”

    To protest this dismal gathering of professional debunkers, volunteer clairvoyants, psychic mediums and ordinary folks are being asked to invite deceased spirits and ghosts to haunt Las Vegas and other locations throughout the world in a massive Million Ghost March.

    Many celebrity spirits are expected to join the march, including Michael Jackson, Ronnie James Dio and Brittany Murphy. Says Doc Paranormal, “At the first Million Ghost March, celebrity ghosts included such Las Vegas legends as gangster Bugsy Seigel, entertainers George Raft, Liberace and George Jessel, the Rat Pack and journalist Hunter S. Thompson, author of the book fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. We expect that this year’s march will feature an international cast of contemporary spirits.”

    Added Doc Paranormal, “The beauty of this event is that it will be held at multiple locations. So even during the height of the march, traffic will not be interrupted and police will not have to restrain crowds. The spirits and ghosts will be invisible, although their presence will be sensed by psychically-sensitive pedestrians and autograph hounds.

    “If we can pry open the closed mind of even one skeptic?while entertaining the public and celebrating the imagination?we will consider the protest a huge success.

    “The Million Ghost March is an open event. Anyone reading this press release is encouraged to ask at least one ghost to attend.”


    1. OK, is this a meta-satire by Randi? Just a huge put-on?
      If you look at doc’s site, you’ll see this being discussed:
      “Demons Volunteer To Terrorize BP Oil Spill Execs.
      In a move to improve their image among exorcists, a group of demonic entities has volunteered to terrorize BP CEO Tony Hayward and other execs behind the catastrophic Gulf of Mexico oil spill.”
      I live in SF, and I’ve run into people on Market Street who really stretch the concepts of what the human mind can believe, but *none* have gotten close to this.

    2. Hey doc paranormal, I have a question for you necromancers. Do you guys ever jack off? How can you not feel an overwhelming sense of self consciousness and basically be in a constant state of being freaked out ever to be comfortable enough to maintain a boner for the purposes of jacking off with the thought of spirits lingering about. It would be impossible. You know you can give yourself cancer down there if you don’t relieve yourself every now and then. Even an active sex life of three or four times a week isn’t really enough to keep the flow jamming and cellular mutations starting up.

  24. Dr. Orpheus: Slow down. What about the zombies?
    Dr. Venture: Oh, I call those “clone slugs” ? grew those years ago from nail clippings, I think. Anyway, after the slugs have been activated, that machine…
    Dr. Orpheus: Purgatory.
    Dr. Venture: Whatever. That computer feeds all their nocturnally recorded memory synapses.
    Dr. Orpheus: Their memories, hopes, and dreams. Their immortal souls!
    Dr. Venture: You’re killing me with that crap; just let me finish. That computer feeds synaptic data to their incubation beds; that information is supplemented with basic knowledge that my dad recorded for me so I didn’t have to go to school; and that is why I didn’t lose my virginity until I was 24.
    Dr. Orpheus: That is awful!
    Dr. Venture: Well, you didn’t see her. It was horrific.

  25. Dr. Orpheus: It craves… purity… it devours… purity… it seems to be… What the hell is this thing made out of?
    Dr. Venture: Nothing.
    Dr. Orpheus: Come on…
    Dr. Venture: Alright fine, I might have used a few unorthodox parts.
    Dr. Orpheus: Just tell me one!
    Dr. Venture: An… (mumbles)
    Dr. Orpheus: A what?
    Dr. Venture: An… orphan.
    Dr. Orpheus: Did you say… an orphan!?
    Dr. Venture: Yeah… a little.. orphan boy..
    Dr. Orpheus: It’s powered by a forsaken child!?
    Dr. Venture: Might be… kind of… I mean, I didn’t use the whole thing!

  26. “So far the only negative comments have been over the paucity of non-male, non-Euro faces on the Reason Cruise roster. Since I have no decent answer to that…”


  27. Obama intellegent? Randi’s done gone senile. Or drunk the kool-aid. Happens to the best, I guess…

  28. Where is Dawkins going when he dies?

  29. we finally have an intelligent president? What happened to Obama? And Biden? Pelosi? So President Inouye supposed to be pretty smart?

  30. Why is reason hooking up with leftist peabrains like Shermer and Randi? There are irrational conspiracy theorists and there are irrational anti-conspiracy theorists, and both have the exact same thought process: they both seek to evade and dismiss all information that does not fit with their conspiracy or anti-conspiracy presumptions. Randi and Shermer both epitomize the irrational anti-conspiracy cognitive style.

    I invited both of these dirtbags to debunk my claims about the Flight 93 memorial: that the giant Islamic-shaped Crescent of Embrace points to Mecca, that the crescent topped tower and the surrounding arc of trees form a year round accurate Islamic prayer-time sundial, etcetera. All simple geometric claims, all perfectly straightforward to verify, all utterly damning. Shermer and Randi would have been glad to debunk these claims, but as soon as they saw that my factual claims were correct, they begged off. Just sheer dirt.

    This is the lesson they would learn from 9/11, an elaborate conspiracy by Islamic terrorists: that there is no such thing as a real conspiracy. These people are disgusting. What possible common ground do libertarians have with these idiotic backwards thinkers, who start with their presumptions and scorn all contrary information?

    I dropped my subscription to Reason 10 years ago when it started moving left. Now it is associated with a pure partisan spin-doctor like Randi? That’s grotesque.

  31. So far the only negative comments have been over the paucity of non-male, non-Euro faces on the Reason Cruise roster.

    My wife will help even things out in both regards.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.