Thumbs-Down to Montana Speech Controls, Split Decision on Arizona Immigration Law, Drones Visit Margaritaville: P.M. Links

|

  • Got a Caribbean soul I can barely control And some Texas hidden here in my heart …

    Montana's effort to bypass the Citizens United ruling and muzzle political speech got a thumbs-down from the Supremes.

  • With its ruling on Arizona's SB 1070, the Supreme Court voided several portions, but left intact a controversial requirement that police check the immigration status of anybody they stop who they suspect is in the U.S. illegally.
  • Mandatory life sentences for juveniles don't pass muster with the Supreme Court. The decision is already having an impact beyond the involved states of Alabama and Arkansas, potentially reopening cases in states including Massachusetts.
  • Even America's drones enjoy a trip to the Caribbean — the Department of Homeland Security plans to more than double the number of square miles now covered by its nine surveillance drones with flights intended to spot drug smugglers at sea.
  • Sandy Springs, Georgia, has out-sourced most of the city government's functions — even permits and the municipal court — to private companies. Residents seem happy with the results, while the usual suspects rend their clothes and wail about "privatopia."
  • Spain made it official, with a request to the rest of the eurozone for help digging itself out of a financial hole. It could ask for some or all of a €100 billion package crafted for this eventuality. In response, investors head for the hills.
  • New Jersey's state Assembly will vote on a bill that would reduce penalties for being caught with less than half an ounce of marijuana — which Governor "Buzzkill" Christie promises to veto if it passes. Christie cites "the children" in his opposition to the proposal, but a new study finds no link between looser laws related to the medical marijuana movement and growing recreational use among teens.
  • A Tacoma, Washington, public school's ban on sunscreen resulted in severe sunburn for an albino girl and her sister. Similar policies are common throughout the country.

Do you want hot links and other Reason goodies delivered to your inbox twice a day? Sign up here for Reason's morning and afternoon news updates.

NEXT: Romney Spox Refuses to Answer Questions About Romney's Position on Arizona's Immigration Law

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.

  1. …left intact a controversial requirement that police check the immigration status of anybody they stop who they suspect is in the U.S. illegally.

    You can look, Arizona, but not touch. (Actually, left to their own devices, I can see local law enforcement holding illegals for spite.)

    1. Or holding them because they are I don’t know illegal. ICE holds them all of the time.

      1. Calling people illegal (rather than “illegal immigrants”) always strikes me as kind of weird and spiteful. We’ve all done illegal things in our lives. Wouldn’t that make everyone “illegal”? Crossing the border illegally isn’t such a great crime in the grand scheme of things.

        1. Yeah, it’s funny that some small-gov’t advocates reinforce (rightfully) that the gov’t overdoes everything, tramples our liberty, and that obedience is not a moral duty…then turn around and think that “well, they broke the law” is a trump card for any argument.

          1. Sometimes even under the smallest government people do break the law. And even the smallest government has every right to enforce its boarders.

            1. Sure it does. But “papers please” (imo the most objectionable portion of the whole thing) is a little bit more than just enforcing borders. Sure, that’s the goal, but it’s trampling the bill of rights to do so. If murder should clearly be illegal but should not be investigated without search warrants, etc., why should immigration crimes be treated more harshly?

              1. If the worst thing the government ever does to you and is ask you for an ID you have a good government. And they don’t punish illegals. They just send them back home. And asking for an ID is not a search.

                1. I never said it was the worst thing, and just because there are far worse things doesn’t mean this particular problem should be ignored. Besides, what of the errors? What about the fact that BP agents essentially have the right to search whatever they want just to get their rocks off? Even if you accept that is reasonable at the border, it’s hard to see how it would be reasonable or constitutional outside of a border crossing.

                  1. It is not outside a border crossing. BP agents only have authority at the border.

                    1. Pretty expansive view of the border.

          2. Maybe some small government advocates believe that border security is a legitimate function of a small government but telling someone that paying cash instead of dinner for sex or smoking pot in your own damned home is a crime are not a legitimate functions of small government.

            1. I don’t deny that border patrol is a legitimate function of government. I deny that compelling people to produce documentation proving citizenship is a legitimate function of small government.

              1. If you can’t have people show who is and is not a citizen, how do you enforce the border?

              2. *people not at a border stop. Obviously, you can’t really do border patrol otherwise. I mean if I’m tooling along a highway that is 50 miles from the border, and has no crossings, there is no legitimate reason to ask me for proof of citizenship.

                1. Yes there is. If they reasonably suspect you of a crime, they can ask you about it. Being illegally in the country is no different.

                  1. What kind of evidence would provide that suspicion?

        2. Crossing the border illegally isn’t such a great crime in the grand scheme of things.

          It is when you’re the Dog Whisperer.

        3. Basically they are charged with tresspassing.

  2. Sandy Springs, Georgia, has out-sourced most of the city government’s functions ? even permits and the municipal court ? to private companies.

    This is exactly the kind of thing that the dystopian novel “Robocop” warned us about.

    1. It’s a good change, but it’s only a start.

    2. I’d buy that for a dollar!

    3. The article is quite interesting actually, particularly the criticisms that have been raining down on the place from the rest of Fulton County.

    4. I am thinking of the zillions of opportunities for entrepreneurship that would appear if every town in america did this. A smaller number of people overall would be employed in municipal services, but they would be better paid, far more competent, and the total cost of municipal services would drop dramatically .

    5. FOE, you’re fired!

    6. This is how most corporations operate these days. Pick the core competency that you are good at, and outsource the rest.

      A few competent contract managers is preferable to a gaggle of bureaucrats.

    7. Does everyone around here have that short of a memory? Reason did a video last year and some articles about it from 2009. Now that NYT jumps on the bandwagon its a hot topic again.

      http://reason.org/news/show/1009355.html

      http://reason.tv/video/show/sa…..a-the-city

    8. The prospect of more Sandy Springs-style incorporations concerns people like Evan McKenzie:

      “You could get into a ‘two Americas’ scenario here,” he says. “If we allow the more affluent to institutionally isolate themselves, then the poor are supposed to do ? what? They’re supposed to have all the poverty and all the social problems and deal with them?”

      Surprisingly, the poor always have all the poverty — by definition.

      1. Yeah, it’s easy to be concerned about the poor when you’re already living smack-dab in the middle of a whiteopia. Put that SWPL dork in a Section 8 housing development for a couple years, and see how magnanimous he becomes about neighborhood income diversity.

        1. Ok, I know “SWPL” stands for “Stuff White People Like” but it just doesn’t make any damned sense as an adjective.

          What is it supposed to mean?

          1. a “SWPL” or “swipple” is one who is the kind of white person being made fun of be the site “Stuff While People Like”.

  3. If she told me the only way she would let me poke her was to set my dick on fire, I would. By Jove, I would!

    Not Safe For Your Marriage, then again, since Bea Arthur died I’ve yet to pick a replacement freebie.

    1. Well, there goes my chance of getting any more work done today.

      1. Like you were doing any work in the first place.

        Now, me, on the other hand…

        1. Don’t tell us what the other hand is doing

      2. I can’t look away.

      3. Well, there goes my chance of getting any more work done today.

        What, you can’t work one-handed?

      4. Just to be sure…
        http://dontwannahearit.com/wp-…..cabiel.jpg

        1. Just to be sure…

          I don’t care what your “type” is. If you don’t like that, you’re either:

          a) a heterosexual woman

          b) a homosexual man

    2. That ass is a force of nature. And don’t tell sarcasmic. He will accuse you of loving fatties. And the picture alone would probably do him long term psychological damage.

      1. Perfect balance of curve to muscularity. It’s like every other woman on the planet is not even trying.

        1. It’s indescribable. They should tear down the Washington Monument and replace it with a 300 foot tall marble sculpture of it.

          1. It’s like the Renascence has been reborn, if that isn’t too redundant for one sentence to handle. I think we may indeed be at the dawn of a Golden Age, and Biel’s ass is the herald of that new era. We’re on the verge of overturning Wickard v. Filburn, I can feel it in the air!

            1. Shut up and look at the ass, fag.

              1. See what that ass is doing to me?

            2. Closer to Idiocracy – “We will ask important questions like whose ass is that? And why is it farting?”

      2. She has a decent ass for a white girl.

    3. Jesus, she’s fucking huge! Look over there guys, it’s a fucking beached WHALE, har har…

      /hit n runner not john

      1. She is not huge.

        1. He’s joking. No one in their right mind could ever call Biel fat.

          1. Sarcasmic would.

            1. I’m not sure if sarc would call her fat, but possibly a butterface.

              1. He has called women with smaller asses fat before. He won’t go for anything above a size 2.

                1. He has called women with smaller asses fat before. He won’t go for anything above a size 2.

                  He trolls Bebe for dates?

                  1. He trolls Bebe for dates?

                    ana websites.

            2. Yeah. Those creases would be too much for him.

            3. Even Sarcasmic would only if he were using the DENNIS plan to break down her self confidence.

              1. “See, I would have gone in and bought a box of magnum condoms, thus demonstrating I have a monster dong.”

    4. I would also like to post a picture of an attractive lass.

      1. Wow. That’s hypnotic.

      2. That GQ shoot almost made me want to buy their shitty rag. Then I remembered how much I hate them and looked up the rest of the pics online.

    5. Words fail sometimes.

  4. Montana’s effort to bypass the Citizens United ruling and muzzle political speech got a thumbs-down from the Supremes.

    Has there been any public gnashing/wailing/etc about this yet?

  5. A Tacoma, Washington, public school’s ban on sunscreen resulted in severe sunburn for an albino girl and her sister

    When I read that story this morning I missed the part where they said the girls had albinism. That makes it worse by infinite degrees. Still, the mom deserves some blame in that since the girls had albinism, she should have had a doctor’s note on file with the school, so the teacher could have applied it in this situation, as stupid as the policy preventing her from doing so was.

    1. I don’t blame the mom at all. I wouldn’t have thought in a million fucking years that you would need a doctor’s note for fucking sunscreen.

      1. I’ve honestly never really thought about copulating with sunscreen.

        1. When all you have is a hammer handful of sunscreen…

      2. I wouldn’t have thought in a million fucking years that you would need a doctor’s note for fucking sunscreen.

        You’ve been away from the absurdity of public schools too long.

      3. This. The original sin is requiring a dr’s note for sunscreen. Blaming the mother for not predicting the stupidity and having a plan for it not the proper path.

        Ridiculing the school is the proper path. Mercilessly ridiculing them.

        And this: Her activism has sparked results. The school district has since apologized, and said a new law allows more leeway for districts to decide what is and isn’t allowed when it comes to applying sunscreen at school. The policy will be revised by October, the district said.

        Yeah, it’s going to take them until fucking October to say ‘Yeah, verily you may find succor in the use of sunscreen”

        1. If they didn’t require a doctor’s note then there would be some kid with allergies who would go into anaphylactic shock upon having the sunscreen applied and the school would be screwed.

          1. If fear of lawsuits is the reason for this, then surely there’s a better solution, like maybe giving parents a form where they can state their preferences. “Sunscreen is known to cause allergic reactions in some children. Would you like to allow your child to use sunscreen while at school? Yes/No,” etc.

          2. I can see requiring a doctor’s note to get sunscreen from the nurse, and I can also see not allowing the kids to share sunscreen with one another.

            Do those two things, and then you don’t have to worry about your scenario.

            If some kid out there is so sensitive to sunscreen that he’ll die if some other kid’s sunscreen rubs off on him, that kid is already as good as dead and there’s no sense having a rule to try to protect him.

    2. I think the albinism thing was an exaggeration that has gotten to be the focus of the story. There are pics of the kids up. First, they don’t look like albinos, at all. Second it looks like a regular kid’s sunburn; not the bleeding, blistered carcass of an albino left in the sun all day.

      I hate these goddamn stories. Who to hate? The overbearing overprotective parents or the zero tolerance lemmings of the school district?

      1. Do they look too red to be albinos?

        1. You don’t get to use that word. Only we get to use that word.

          1. I thought ‘albinos’ was cool. ‘Albinos’ is cool right? My grandmother always said ‘albinos’ so I thought…

            We’re still cool, right?

            My albino *puts hand up for high five*

          2. I think he meant ‘Red.’ Is FoE an overly-sensitive ginger? Is there even such a thing? I thought sensitivity required a soul…

            1. But a soulless rat bastard would use the sensitivity a besouled individual has against them.

      2. I think the albinism thing was an exaggeration that has gotten to be the focus of the story. There are pics of the kids up. First, they don’t look like albinos, at all. Second it looks like a regular kid’s sunburn; not the bleeding, blistered carcass of an albino left in the sun all day.

        She had to put the story in a healthcare perspective. Otherwise no media would have ever given her the time of day. It would have been better if she’d have been able to spin it as “minorities hardest hit”, that way the New York Times would have picked it up.

        BTW, I haven’t watched the video– is that picture possibly stock photo?

        1. BTW, I haven’t watched the video– is that picture possibly stock photo?

          No, mom is a professional photographer, actually.

        2. No, they had the pics up with some article when this story broke two days ago(*ahem* Reason *cough*).

          They have red hair and blue eyes; fair skinned yes, albinos pigmentless -Americans no.

          I hate the stoopidly pigheaded arbitrariness of school rules more than anyone, but we must realize that those rules weren’t created in a vacuum. What do you think would happen if a teacher put sunscreen on a kid who was allergic and he died. The story would be just as big with people saying that teachers aren’t docs and shouldn’t be giving kids medicine.

          1. They have red hair

            Couldn’t they have dyed their hair?

            1. Couldn’t they have dyed their hair?

              Maybe they’re magic albinos that can snap their fingers and change the color of their hair? Maybe they dyed their skin so that they could get on the teevee? Maybe they’re really the spawn of satan and the teacher has been having dreams of them and the impending apocalypse since she had a high fever as a child, and she was trying to kill satan with fire because she likes memes and the simpsons…

          2. What do you think would happen if a teacher put sunscreen on a kid who was allergic and he died.

            Schools allowed suncreen regularly for most of the history of sunscreen. Can we get an accurate count of the number of dead children resulting from rogue sunscreen application?

            I hate the stoopidly pigheaded arbitrariness of school rules more than anyone, but we must realize that those rules weren’t created in a vacuum.

            Actually, some rules are created in a vacuum. IN this here modern era, many “policies” especially in places like schools– are put in place sans any complaint or incident that occurred. They hired a ‘risk management’ consultant whose job it is to sit around and think of shit like this, and then charge a hefty fee for her services.

    3. what hell is wrong with the teacher? watching a kid burn all day?

      1. The teacher thought the kid was a daywalker.

      2. Oh, and making comments to the kids how sunburned they were as well.

      3. There is nothing wrong with the teacher – it was just marking another day to retirement, and pension.

        1. The teacher was just following orders.

      4. Some teachers just want to watch the world burn.

    4. I never would make it through school today. I never had a doctors note or visited to nurse and took various over the counter and prescription drugs at school while in public school. Either no one noticed or no one cared.

  6. http://althouse.blogspot.com/2…..nited.html

    James Fallows tears taste wonderful.

    1. how long before we go full circle and the press starts calling the conservative justices the Four Horseman.

      of course, that assumes they know anything about history.

    2. There are several matters of law that were settled wrongly. Slaughterhouse and Wickard come to mind. Those need to be reexamined and overturned.

      To decide cases in accordance with the text of the constitution is not “activism”.

      1. It is to liberals, especially when that pesky document gets in the way of all their statist solutions.

  7. Turkey now claiming that Syria has fired on ANOTHER one of their planes.

    Our next splendid little war should be starting just about any day now.

    1. I say we let the Turks fight a war by themselves like a grown-up nation.

      1. At least this one will be legal. We do have a treaty with Turkey.

        1. Still need a declaration of war, even under the NATO treaty.

          Or we would, if any of Our Masters cared about the Constitution.

          1. Declar–how do you spell that? I think I heard about that archaic practice in law school.

            1. I believe it is spelled:

              executive order.

              1. That’s how laws are made in this country, right? To be applauded or insulted by the. . .what do you call it, the Coitus?

      2. You want the Ottoman Empire to rise again?

        Do you have any idea of what you are unleashing?

        1. They could start raiding Greece and Italy for slaves again. It is not like they would be taken away from jobs or anything.

          1. Why not? They’ve already reconquered Kosovo.

            War creates jobs!!!!

            1. Plus, Jannisaries are pretty cool.

        2. Sure, why not? Let them handle the Middle East.

          1. Why not? You let the Turk get a taste of blood in Syria and next thing you know, you’ll have Jannisaries marching down the streets of Manhattan, celebrating the construction of the Ground Zero Mega Mosque.

            1. Jannisaries in New York in June. They can prey at the Mega Mosque in the morning and celebrate gay pride on Fire Island in the evening.

              1. err, pray, mmm, maybe?!?

          2. Egypt maight have something to say about all this.

            1. What, the British protectorate? Why would they care?

            2. But nothing very effective.

        3. Seems like a pretty good idea to me. Turkey is one of the only countries in that area that’s even semi-sane.

          I mean, sure, they’re oppressive, statist bastards, but look at their neighbors.

          1. Should’ve helped the Sick Man of Europe out way back when.

  8. “You could get into a ‘two Americas’ scenario here,” he says. “If we allow the more affluent to institutionally isolate themselves, then the poor are supposed to do ? what? They’re supposed to have all the poverty and all the social problems and deal with them?”

    Yes. All your poverty are belong to you.

    1. Since when haven’t rich people not lived around poor people?

      1. Isn’t the entire state of Connecticut basically rich people trying to isolate themselves from poor people?

        1. Funny, I thought it was where we exiled the bad drivers…

          1. You ain’t shittin. It took me 5 hours to drive 70 miles from La Guardia to my destination friday afternoon. Apparently hills, police on the side of the road, and accidents pulled over to the shoulder completely stop traffic there. Fuckers.

            By contrast, I drove from Tampa to Tallahassee (250 miles) in a tropical storm Sunday night in the same amount of time.

            1. Is it worse here or there? I heard that the most likely track right now has it moving–when it moves–towards Jacksonville.

        2. I was there all weekend. There are an awful lot (2) of Walmarts for a rich people enclave. Of course, I was staying next to the one in Groton which may not count because it is adjacent to a military installation.

          1. Fairfield County can be described that way, not sure about the rest of the state.

          2. Southeastern Connecticut is not rich. Southwestern Connecticut on the other hand is quite rich.

    2. Wouldn’t the poor, by definition, ‘have all the poverty”?

      1. Those greedy poor people should learn to share! Stop hoarding all the poverty!

    3. And no one ever helped a poor person voluntarily.

      If rich people isolate themselves, who will take care of their houses? People just don’t think sometimes.

  9. Intended to spot drug smugglers at sea

    And when the predictable disastrous consequences start happening just remember: Intentions matter; results do not.

    1. What disastrous consequences? It is just a big remote controlled plane? Do you think they are going to start firing tow missiles at sport fisherman?

      1. Do you think they are going to start firing tow missiles at sport fisherman filthy drug smugglers?

        Why yes, yes I do.

        1. I don’t. They have been catching them for decades no missiles needed. And most of the smuggling comes up the Pacific side these days anyway. The Caribbean is just so 80s.

          1. They do occasionally machine gun them from helicopters. Missiles is a whole other step, but how many things have you said “that’ll never happen” about which are happening today?

            1. They fire on the engines of boats who refuse to stop and be boarded. They don’t shoot people on the high seas.

          2. You may have missed my larger point. Anyone they do fire on, sport fishermen included, will be deemed a filthy drug smuggler.

            1. They aren’t firing on anyone who stops. And they have a right to board any ship on the high seas. That is international law going back hundreds of years. If you are fast mover and ignore Coast Guard requests to stop, you deserve to get your engine shot.

              1. Funny, I heard a bunch of wailing when some kind young gentlemen decided to try that off the coast of Somalia.

                1. There is difference between being the Coast Guard and being a pirate. The Coast Guard calls the government whose flag the vessel is flagged under and gets permission to board first. If you have no flag, they can assume you to be a US ship and can board at will.

                  1. No difference at all. Using force to board a ship at sea is piracy. No matter what pretty words you use to justify it. The US Coast Guard should not have any power in international waters.

                    1. No difference at all. Using force to board a ship at sea is piracy

                      No it is not. Not when you get permission of the country that the boat is flagged under.

                    2. Unless the vessel is owned by the other country, they have no place giving permission. Private property is private property. Using force to board a privately owned ship is piracy.

                    3. That is not how it works or has worked since pretty much forever.

                    4. I believe Chris Mallory is referring to the morality, not the legality of the Coast Guard/Navy boarding ships in int’l waters, as laws are made by the most immoral people in the world for deliberately evil purposes.

        2. TOWs are outdated. It’s all laser guided now days.

          1. TOWs aren’t outdated, they’re just not very effective for firing from a UAV. They’ll still knock the fuck out of an armored vehicle.

            Hellfire seem to be kind of expensive for shooting at sports fisherman, unless you get them to wrap a towel around their head.

            Then it’s OK.

      2. Yes. Yes, I do.

      3. It wouldn’t surprise me. TOW missiles have already been authorized by the FYTW statute.

      4. Nope. *Hellfire* missiles.

    2. “Drug smugglers”. Uh Huh. That’s why we need millions of dollars of surveillance equipment over the Gulf beaches and zooming in on yachts and stuff.

      Because of all the nubile, scantily clad “drug smugglers.”

      1. I suspect Jessica Biel of smuggling. They need to get more pics.

        1. Pickles or sausages?

          1. We’ll only be able to tell after the pics are in. Possibly not even then.

  10. With its ruling on Arizona’s SB 1070, the Supreme Court voided several portions

    I voided several portions once.

    1. Oh Sandi. Scatalogical humor is the best humor.

  11. http://www.popularmechanics.co…..=pm_latest

    The gigapixel camera has arrived. One of these must be used to take a picture of Jessica Biel’s ass. They owe it to civilization.

    1. Gigapixel cameras, giant 3-D printers, and a few thousand blocks of marble. I finally have a get-rich-quick scheme that I like.

    2. Maybe two such cameras could produce a gigapixel 3D image.

      1. And then we use that image with a 3D printer….anybody around here know CAD really well?

        1. It just so happens I have a passing knowledge* of CAD.

          *I work with CAD pretty much every day.

    3. I dont usually go for the glamour girl types….been down that bumpy road before….but I have to admit Biel’s ass is truly a work of art.

  12. Princeton ethicist (and infanticide fancier) Peter Singer says the HHS mandate doesn’t violate religious freedom because the Catholic Church can always close down all its hospitals and schools – after all Catholicism doesn’t *require* the Church to operate hospitals and schools.

    http://www.project-syndicate.o…..us-freedom

    Rebuttal by Thomas Bogardus:

    “So suppose we pass a law requiring all churches to be burned to the ground. If Singer is right, this doesn’t infringe upon religious freedom in the slightest since there’s no requirement in Christianity to worship in any buildings at all, let alone those that are non-smoldering. Or a country might pass a law requiring all Muslims to renounce their religion or have their hands amputated. No problem for religious freedom here, according to Singer, since the practice of Islam doesn’t require any hands at all.”

    http://www.firstthings.com/ont…..us-freedom

    1. Singer is probably the most loathsome public intellectual in the world. The fact that any university much less one of the alleged prestige of Princeton would hire him says that we are probably better off without universities or at least university ethicists at this point.

      1. For some reason, when I think of “Peter Singer, Ethicist” I am reminded of “Wile E. Coyote, Genius.”

        1. That’s SUPer Genius.

          1. Not always.

            http://25.media.tumblr.com/tum…..o1_500.png

        2. Suuuuuper Genius.

    2. Also, Singer says banning kosher and halal meat (in the name of animal rights of course) doesn’t violate religious freedom either, since Jews and Muslims can simply go veggie:

      “Neither Islam nor Judaism upholds a requirement to eat meat. And I am not calling upon Jews and Muslims to do any more than I have chosen to do myself, for ethical reasons, for more than 40 years.”

      1. Judaism doesn’t exactly tolerate not eating meat for ethical reasons. Well, that is Orthodox anyway. People can abstain for health reasons, but abstaining because you think killing animals for food is wrong is very much against Judaism.

        1. okay, well I don’t mean “doesn’t exactly tolerate”. There are multiple opinions about everything. But it is not generally accepted to do so for ethical reasons.

      2. “I am not calling upon Jews and Muslims to do any more than I have chosen to do myself, for ethical reasons, for more than 40 years.”

        What’s most bothersome about this is not the content, it’s that this individual doesn’t realize how awful this sounds to a normal human being.

        1. That’s one highly evolved sense of dripping, condescending smugness.

        2. “I am not calling upon Jews and Muslims to do any more than I have chosen to do myself, for ethical reasons, for more than 40 years.”

          (1) There isn’t an Islamist imam in the world who couldn’t say that about every barbaric, odious, hateful practice that he preaches.

          (2) The narcissism is just stunning. “Hey, I kinda like this, and have done it myself. How could anybody object to being forced to be just like me? Glorious, glorious me?”

      3. “And I am not calling upon Jews and Muslims to do any more than I have chosen to do myself, for ethical reasons, for more than 40 years.”

        So then, Singer would not mind if Jews or Muslims called for all people to forgo all non-kosher or non-halal foods. After all, it is not anymore than they’ve been doing for thousands of years.

    3. If I start a religion, and claim that God told me to oppose all insurance mandates (not just ones about contraception, but hair replacement therapy, liposuction, w/e else the congresscritters and bureautrash put in the regulations) would that give me license to ignore those mandates? If I am religiously opposed to tariffs, may I ignore them? My point here is that I think the religious liberty angle is pretty weak. Individual liberty and free markets, sure, but the Catholic Church doesn’t seem particularly fond of those.

      1. First, whether someone is fond of the free market is irrelevent to whether they have rights or not. Rights are just that; rights. They don’t just apply to people we like.

        Second, if you started a religion that objected to mandates, you would get an exception. The Amish already did.

        Freedom of religion means freedom not to be forced by the government to do things against your religion. If you don’t like that, tough shit. Go live in a country that doesn’t have freedom of religion.

      2. Individual liberty and free markets, sure, but dope-smokers – who are mostly Democrats – aren’t for those things, so it’s OK to punish dope-smokers for their herbal predilections.

        If you’re willing to give up the First Amendment (religious freedom), why not also give up the Tenth (the one which ought to protect dope-smokers, at least in the medical MJ states?)

        1. I make a snide comment and you pretend it was my argument. And christ, I don’t oppose religious liberty, I was asking what the limits of it are. Clearly, human sacrifice would not fall under those limits, what else doesn’t?

          I’m so tired of fucktards who respond to a legitimate question of an argument assuming that I oppose the 1st amendment. Nope, no way I could possibly be looking for an intellectual discussion as to why, exactly, the RL argument (and not some other one) actually works. No, just pounce, because it questions the hive mind.

          For the record, I am a libertarian who opposes mandates. I’d like to see a stronger argument. And though (no shit) I don’t think the RCC should be penalized for not supporting others’ liberties, I am free to voice my dissatisfaction with them.

          1. OK, I’m sorry I was too quick to be sarcastic, but I was thinking of your claim that “I think the religious liberty angle is pretty weak.” But it’s actually quite strong:

            a) Congress itself has declared that even a completely neutral, nondiscriminatory law or regulation needs to have exceptions for sincere religious objectors unless the government has a compelling interest in the policy and that there isn’t any less restrictive means of accomplishing that goal other than violating religious freedom. You seem to agree that there is no compelling interest in compulsory “birth-control” insurance.

            b) The health-care law and regulations *aren’t* neutral since Congress and HHS have handed out all sort of exceptions to religious groups (like the Amish) and to secular groups like McDonald’s. Having doled out exemptions like candy, the govt cannot turn around and say, “our policy would collapse if we allowed exceptions, derp derp.” It wouldn’t pass the laugh test.

            c) The regulations claim that serving people outside your religion isn’t part of the core purposes of a religious organization, but if you help only your own people, you’re considered to be a bona fide religion and get an exemption. So the government is actually encouraging religious charities to cut off aid to people outside their own tradition. Which would mean that the Good Samaritan wasn’t really being religious when he helped someone outside his religious tradition.

      3. The Catholic Church isn’t forcing people to be members or employees of the Catholic Church, either. Religious liberty is inseparable from individual liberty and free markets. Which is why insurance mandates (all mandates, really) and tariffs are immoral, at best. You can’t compartmentalize freedom.

        1. Yes, The Hammer, this is exactly what I think. That’s why I find the conventional conservative argument, which *does* compartmentalize freedom by privileging religious liberty, so confusing and weak.

          1. Fair enough. I agree that the Religious Right (and the State-worshipping Left) lose a lot of credibility by trying to pretend to support freedom only in cases where it benefits them. But I don’t think necessarily attacking the parts where they are actually pro-freedom is the best way to go. They might turn around and say “you’re right, that’s a weak argument. The state should control everything, especially if it might keep somebody somewhere from getting high.”

            1. Hm, good point. The balance could be easily tipped.

            2. BTW, be careful using my name. I’ve been told it’s a killing word.

    4. Singer is why I favor nuking Australia. Well, Singer and the Wiggles.

      1. Dude. The Wiggles are exceptionally good capitalists. I wish I had thought of their shtick.

        If I were you, I’d keep a lookout for any big, red cars that happen to be slowly and repeatedly cruising by your house.

        1. Is there an American knockoff of the Wiggles? Because I’m willing to do it for a few tens of millions. I want to be one of the red shirt guys, though, who seem to have minimal duties and don’t have to die like on Star Trek.

      2. The wiggles are breaking up. Purple, Red, and Yellow are leaving the Blue guy all alone.

    5. If I hadn’t been forewarned by the comments here, I’d have presumed Singer was engaging in satire.

  13. Given that I consider monopolizing the licit use of force is one of the few legitimate responsibilities of Government, I am somewhat concerned about the idea of a privately owned for profit corporation being declared a court. I like most of the other changes, but that one bothers me.

    1. It’s a city court, so it doesn’t handle any criminal cases, and its edicts are still enforced by the holy public sector police, who have no self-interest and can do no wrong. I really don’t see what the problem is.

      1. I’m not saying public sector police are great in their current state, but I don’t see how giving them a profit motive would improve them. Indeed, a lot of the problem with the drug war are a result of creating (via asset forfeiture and federal grant) too much of a profit motive to arrest more people. In a free market, a company’s ability to seek profit is limited by the ability of a customer to refuse to deal with them if they’re asking for too big a windfall. When you get in a situation like a court, the police, or a jail where refusing to deal with them is no longer an option, profit seeking can become a big problem. In the case of this court, for example, the judge is paid by the hour. What’s his incentive to dismiss frivolous cases early in the process?

        1. This judge has the exact same incentive as a public sector judge to dismiss or hear cases. In this case it’s just more direct and easier to change the terms of his contract. I think it’s funny that you are using specifically public-sector problems (asset forfeiture, police department rent seeking) as a basis of your fear of privatization.

          1. This judge has the exact same incentive as a public sector judge to dismiss or hear cases.

            A public sector judge doesn’t get paid more if he drags a case out longer then it needs to be.

            I think it’s funny that you are using specifically public-sector problems (asset forfeiture, police department rent seeking)

            Public-sector problems that result from an inherently governmental function being pursued from a standpoint of revenue enhancement. Courts are not a free market.

            basis of your fear of privatization

            Except this isn’t privatization, in that the government courts have not replaced with a free market of competing companies. It’s still essentially a public sector court in that you have to use the one single court, it’s just a public sector being run for the benefit of a private interest.

    2. Given that I consider monopolizing the licit use of force is one of the few legitimate responsibilities of Government,

      Traditionally, that’s the “initiation” of force. Of course, that assumes you believe people have a right of self-defense.

      1. Of course, that assumes you believe people have a right of self-defense.

        I’m fine with self-defense, but I wouldn’t consider it “force” in the sense I’m using it, as you’re not compelling someone to act.

    3. How can assign rights to a group that you, yourself do not have to begin with?

      Certainly the use of force is legitimate when used as a response to the initiation of force, or fraud. But the use of force to maintain a monopoly is the initiation of force.

  14. So I watched “The Help” last night, and the main racist bitchy character introduces a bill to require white homeowners to build separate bathrooms for the black servants. She explained how forcing people to do this was for their own good because it would add to their homes’ value, and that she would do anything for the children. It struck me how plausible that line of reasoning was coming from a good southern Democrat in in the 60’s, and how little self-identified liberals have changed since then.

  15. Mom sent bill to clean street after son killed by illegal immigrant.

    So yeah, government compassion right there. “Your son died? Well, here’s the bill to clean up his carcass off the side of the road.”

    1. The joys of open borders, a son killed because we need diversity and cheap maids.

      1. Don’t worry Chris, you can still be a housekeeper if you put your mind to it.

      2. Open borders? That’s what you got out of that?

        1. Don’t you know? If we just kicked out them illegals, there wouldn’t be no crime!

          1. Actually, if we just let in the ones that wanted to work we would have more resources to go after the actual criminals.

    1. It should be noted that King was previously arrested and not charged after recording police in April ? a video he says showed an abuse of power.

    2. I wonder, is bouncing someone’s head off the sidewalk proper procedure?

  16. Indiana Jones blu-ray arriving in September.

    So, what’s the over-under on whether George Lucas will add pointless CGI shit and enrage his overly-sensitive fan base?

    http://www.ign.com/articles/20…..-pre-order

    1. Geaorge Lucas reminds me of the old aphorism: no work of art is ever finished, only abandoned. He’s got the time and money to go back and finish fiddle-farting around with his movies with technology he didn’t have. The problem here is that Lucas is like a lot of other artists: left to his own devices he gets self-indulgent. He needs some kind of limits to work within.

    2. Someone has surely already made the joke that the guy with the sword will now shoot first.

  17. OT (is there OT in PM links? Whatever; I don’t care): Debby is starting to annoy me. Also, has anybody seen the news story about the sinkhole swallowing a house that for some reason made national news even though it happens all the time? That’s pretty much across the street from my hospital, and idiots keep stopping their cars in the middle of the street to take pictures of it. That’s annoying too.

    1. There is no OT, although if you want a lot of responses you should post a link to some tits. Who’s Debby? And what sinkhole? Sinkholes don’t happen all the time. Unless you live in some backwater shithole like Florida.

        1. Is she doing Dallas or dishes?

          1. Would that she would. She’s doing Florida right now.

            1. Well, I wouldn’t want to touch her after that thing went in her.

        2. My wife just sent me a picture of a lifeguard tower on the beach (maybe Clearwater) being mostly buried in sand. Some storm.

          1. South Tampa and Bayshore are totally underwater again. There is widespread flooding up here in Pasco and Hernando. It’s not as bad as ’93, but we had a 10′ storm surge then.

            1. My car got seriously splashed on the way home across the bridge. Not good when the Bay is leaving its confines.

              1. I heard on the news that FHP was closing the Howard Franklin because waves are crashing over it.

              2. I heard the Gulf to Bay bridge (60) is closed.

                1. No, you’re right, it was the Frankland.

  18. Here’s a charming story. Reclusive billionaire lets firm RG Steel go bankrupt to avoid paying for $650m in environmental damages.

    This is my question for those of you who believe legal limited liability and bankruptcy is sacrosanct: why should society pay to clean up the messes of the company of a man worth an estimated $5.4B? And he’s already done it before to avoid $900M in damages for a different company.

    Seriously, this shows exactly why the Left created a regulatory state, why the regulatory state doesn’t work to stop the politically connected, and why limited liability and bankruptcy are such…bankrupt concepts.

    1. this shows exactly why the Left created a regulatory state

      States and localities giving sweeping immunities against property claims came about generations before the regulatory state. Dates at least to Henry Clay.

    2. I’m willing to bet dollars to donuts that regulators, lobbyists, and special interests of every stripe created the law, with loopholes, so everyone (in a position of power) would be happy. John Q. Public? Since when does anyone care about that guy?

    3. “The latest row is over Maryland-based RG Steel which Rennert bought last year with his own company, Renco.
      Now, despite being worth $5.5billion RG Steel has filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy.”

      So all the enviromental damages occurred in the year since he owned the company? Otherwise your saying he should have his entire personal wealth be on the hook for things he was not even theoretically involved in the decision making for. That being said, unless the company has considerably more debt than the cost of the enviromental cleanup, I have no idea how they could file bankruptcy just to avoid the cleanup charges. Also, bankruptcy does not really void your debt, it prevents creditors from asking for it all at once, unless the assets are being liquidated.

      1. Otherwise your saying he should have his entire personal wealth be on the hook for things he was not even theoretically involved in the decision making for.

        “Caveat emptor.” You buy a company, you buy the liabilities.

        1. True. Assuming that there was disclosure of potential or pending environmental action.

        2. Then only the king of idiots would own any stock. Effectively, you want to destroy the ability of individuals to invest in companies they do not personally run. I do not see that as being wise or practical.

          If he’s defrauding and abusing the bankruptcy court, then he should be punished for that. But he has no personal responsibility for whatever enviromental mess RGSteel caused. And again, bankruptcy does not discharge liability, it prioritizes liability.

          1. Buy investors insurance. Insurance rates are set by past and current practices, tort history, etc. Responsible companies get a profit advantage over irresponsible companies.

            Companies and liability insurance should operate the same way driving and car insurance does – people drive cars despite the risk of an accident that could potentially bankrupt them. Likewise people will start businesses despite the risk of a lawsuit. There needn’t be any government legal status that socializes risk to the value of the company just like there doesn’t need to be a special class of drivers that have liability limited to the price of their car.

            1. Which will price small investors out of the market, resulting in a more rigid class system. Bravo.

              1. Right. No small proprietorships or partnerships ever buy liability insurance to protect their personal assets.

                If you aren’t willing to take responsibility for your business, you shouldn’t be in business. Period.

              2. And by the way, the idea that privatizing liability would cause more class division is pretty silly. The market would be far more competitive, enterprises would be smaller and more responsible and there would be far less need for regulation and other barriers to entry.

      2. If he purchased the company without knowledge of the environmental liabilities due to fraud by the previous owners, he’d certainly be within his right to sue them. Otherwise, what Tulpa said.

        As this wasn’t the first time he’s done it, I’d assume he knows some legal loopholes to make it work. Again, this is why both the regulatory state and corporate capitalism fails to defend individual rights. I guess the neighbors and taxpayers get to deal with the problem, and he gets shielded from liability.

        1. His company could be forced out of control of RG Steel entirely incuding having the assets liquidated out from under it. RG Steel is still liable for all its debts, including the enviromental costs. Bankruptcy is not a get out of jail free card by any means. I see no good reason why anyone’s personal fortune should be at risk in a stuation like this.

          1. RG Steel the valueless entity may be liable ad infinitum, but no human being will be after bankruptcy, meaning that those harmed by their actions get to bear the costs of the damages. Requiring owners to bear the full legal liability is the only way to incentivize responsibility.

            1. “…but no human being will be after bankruptcy,…”

              Which helps anyone, how? It seems to me you will not be satisfied until someone is ruined, it is just a desire for petty vengeance.

              1. ????

                No, I don’t want anybody to be ruined. But in particular, I don’t want the cost of the damages from a business foisted upon victims and taxpayers just because the property and capital legally allocated to the corporation vanishes. I’m anti-liability socialism.

    4. Well, his wife looks a lot like John C. Reilly, so….there’s that.

    5. That guy sort of looks evil. Too bad he didn’t have a mustache to twirl.

  19. Christie is a douchebag. He’s also a punk ass bitch that won’t really stand up to the NJEA, and he bailed out that monstrosity in Atlantic City known as The Revel. He never did pass any loosening of regulations for the smaller casinos like he said he would. I wonder why?

    Fuck him, Sweeney, Norcross and LoBiondo.

  20. What in the holy fuck are they teaching constitutional law professors these days?

  21. “The federal government still says marijuana is an illegal drug,” said Mr. Christie.

    A man of conscience such as himself can’t just go around opposing federal laws:
    Chris Christie Vetos Obamacare

  22. Google researchers accidentally discover Objectivist epistemology.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06…..wanted=all

    1. And, of course, it’s fucking cats. The internet is like 90% porn and 9.8% cats. I wanna see what they figure out buy feeding xtube thumbnails into it.

      1. That is what happens when you put Warty in charge of the internet.

  23. Stay classy, TSA.

    http://www.theindychannel.com/…..etail.html

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.