Boston Marathon Bombing

Explosions at Boston Marathon, Gold Is Down and Opium Is Up, Germany Mulls Robbing the Rich: P.M. Links


  • Gold performed terribly on the market, suffering its worst fall in decades. China's slower-than-expected growth is partly blamed.
  • German officials are pushing for a wealth tax to pay for bailouts for weaker members of the European Union.
  • The Supreme Court declined today to consider whether New York's restrictions on carrying guns in public violate the Second Amendment.
  • All our efforts in Afghanistan have resulted in an increase in opium production for the third year in a row.
  • The feds are now saying the information they received from the state of Missouri that listed all the state's concealed weapons permit holders was unreadable.
  • Rick Santorum fell ill and had to be hospitalized over the weekend. Did a gay wedding in the vicinity make him sick?

Have a news tip for us? Send it to:

Follow Reason 24/7 on Twitter: @reason247

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and don't forget to sign up for Reason's daily updates for more content

NEXT: Five Unacknowledged, Unexpected, and Unavoidable Facts about Govt Spending and the Economy

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. Explosions at the Boston marathon have reportedly killed two and injured at least 23.

    Time for the White House to go into crisitunity mode.

    1. We need a ban on assault bombs.

    2. Can’t they at least give us a generic name of the suspect, so we can out the wrong guy from Facebook?

  2. German officials are pushing for a wealth tax to pay for bailouts for weaker members of the European Union.

    You know who else…ah hell, you know the joke.

    1. Being the wealthiest nation in the union is apparently quite taxing.

      1. The mother land these days.

        1. Think you mean the Fatherland

          1. What is this? Your own personal war on womenz???

    2. Sounds like they are pushing for wealth taxes for other people, not Germans. That EU is really great.

  3. Sir Stirling Moss says women lack mental aptitude for Formula 1

    1. He’s obviously seen my wife drive.

    2. Well fuck that guy, whoever he is.

  4. Was just at the grocery, guy in the next line over was raving about anti-government extremists “obviously” being responsible for the Boston bombings.

    I laughed at him. He didn’t like that too much.

    1. You shouldn’t laugh at retarded people. It’s bad form, man.

    2. I hope you told him “fuck the government”.

      1. I wanted to tell him that when us anti government nuts start planting bombs, they’ll mostly be going off in DC. But I didn’t want to get arrested on the spot for a terroristic threat.

        1. No shit. We have had bombings done by anti government nuts. And they didn’t blow up an OU football game, they blew up the OKC federal building.

    3. My dad always reminds me about being in the school office in the 5th grade and the principle came out of his office yelling “Those damn right-wingers finally did! They shot him (JFK)!”

      1. Yeah and of course it ended up being a Communist who was pissed at JFK for actually standing up to the Soviets.

        1. And yet, right-wingers still get blamed for JFK’s death, to this day.

          Because somehow the “atmosphere” caused Oswald to do it.

      2. The Comedian was right-wing.

        1. I really love that book. The best part is how Alan Moore wrote Rohrsach as a send up of “insane” libertarian/Objectivist beliefs and he is by far the most popular character and the most moral/noble, from my point of view anyway.

  5. On gold: buy now guys. Buy while it’s low.

    1. The commenters over at zerohedge are certainly in the market to buy right now, or at least they are saying they are.

      I’m hoping to see $1000 again.

      1. The reason to own gold is to hedge against inflation. Now, in the long run, there is going to be massive inflation. Unless you are a moron Keynesian who believes debt is wealth, then it’s going to happen. This is just a pothole.

        1. Oh definitely. But I have zero gold as it stands so it dipping is good for me if I want to buy some physical.

          1. I don’t know if this is real gold or paper gold. If it’s real, I will be buying some.

            1. Methinks this is paper gold investors realizing they have nothing backing their certificates and seeking to sell to the greater fool.

              How else to explain the low supply of real gold in the midst of a sell-off?

              1. Very possible. It’s why I buy real coins. I mean, if you are a big money investor, yeah paper gold makes sense. But if SHTF for real, paper gold certificates are worthless. I mean, in 33 FDR told people holding all these gold backed dollars to pound sand.

              2. I can’t believe I agree with Tulpa, but the sell off in gold started with the Cyprus bank holiday a could weeks back.

                Now we get rumblings about a “wealth tax” which is another way of saying “raid deposit and investment accounts”. A paper statement is just a paper statement.

              3. I would also think that any shop with physical gold to sell may hold off on selling now and be way more into buying off of people jumping ship. They likely bought their gold supplies at a higher price so selling it now is basically a loss to them on every transaction.

                Meh, I knew to this so I could be way off the mark.

    2. If you can find it.

      It’s amazing to see gold in a supposed sell-off and yet I can’t find a dealer with any in stock.

      1. I really think it’s just paper gold. I mean, I checked around my usual sources, and price for an actual gold coin is unchanged.

        1. yep, the premium on physical is going up.

    3. No Reason update on BitCoin today, I see.

      1. Yeah, I mean it’s such a slow news day otherwise, right?

  6. Justin Verlander and his obscene salary represents everything that is wrong with America.

    1. What a whiny little bitch. I mean, grow some fucking balls.

      Envy is such an ugly thing.

    2. If we could pay Slate and Gawkerverse writers not to write, am I wrong in thinking no sum would be too large?

    3. In 1930 (I think), Babe Ruth signed a contract for an annual salary of $80,000 which was more than the President’s $75,000 salary at the time.

      Somebody asked Babe if he should really be earning more than the President, to which he supposedly responded, “Well, I had a better year than the President.”

    4. I’m trying to remember where exactly I read it, but I’m pretty sure it was Freakonomics. Basically, athletes are “worth” the millions of dollars they make for the enjoyment they bring to our lives. While that’s not as tangible a service or product as “education” or even medical services from a doctor or nurse, their actions on the court/field/diamond etc. are enjoyed by millions of people at a single time, so if you factor in how many people they are affecting over the course of the year, many athletes could be considered underpaid.

      It was an interesting idea, to say the least, but it also makes more sense than saying teachers should be paid more because of whatever the fuck it is they do.

      1. In one of my finance courses, we ran some numbers on athlete compensation, and the owners were looking like the big winners. This was back in the 80s, but I imagine it’s still true.

      2. Millions of people are willing to pay a small extra price for products to cover the advertising of professional sporting events. Only a very small number of people are good enough to play at the level that gets such a level of advertising. It’s only natural that the athletes will get a lot of money as a result.

      3. Freakonomics made it more complicated than it is. People are willing to pay to watch them. They generate revenue. It is really that simple.

        1. Market value != value to society

        2. Otherwise you’d have to say that Michael Moore and Al Gore are boons to society.

          1. Well, Moore is. Because individuals have decided they enjoy watching his movies and reading his emotions thoughts. I mean, the guy is a great capitalist.

            Gore is another matter. He is a professional parasite.

            1. Yes, I have no problem with Moore making movies, even saying the shit he says. End of the day, he has that right, and people have the right to consume his silly productions.

  7. Krugman on Bitcoins: Silly, antitsocial, and with zero economic value.

    Of course his biggest problem is that the government can’t control it.

    1. Hmmm…I haven’t gotten into BitCoins at all. But if Krugman is against it, it’s probably a really smart idea.

    2. ‘Antisocial?’

      1. But the furor over bitcoin was a useful lesson in the ways people misunderstand money ? and in particular how they are misled by the desire to divorce the value of money from the society it serves.

        That’s some grade-A retard right there.

        1. I’d love to ask Paul Krugman about wampum and get his opinion on how Native Americans and settlers were able to use it as currency without a state to set the value.

        2. Actually, he has a point there. Currency’s three functions (as a store of value, medium of exchange, and unit of account) all depend on other people recognizing that value — otherwise all you have are funny pieces of paper or a shiny metal.

          1. Yes, but his argument is that government is the only way currency can be taken seriously. Actually you can use anything as currency, so long as there’s agreement that people want to use it.

          2. Yeah, but I think it’s clear that he thinks government = society. Thus a non-governmental competing currency is anti-social.

            It’s not like Bitcoins don’t follow the same rules.

            1. Ah. I didn’t read the article, just the excerpt.

            2. Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.

              We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education.

              We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all.

              We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality.

              And so on, and so on.

              Krugman lives the so on.

              1. That dude Bastiat was French and lived like a thousand years ago, anyway.

    3. Wow, the only reason that shithead even knows that Bitcoin exists is from all the time he spends commenting here, since folks here have been talking about it so much lately. Reason should be pretty proud of itself!

  8. Shrieking Idiot will be along any minute now to tell us that he was right about gold all along, never mind that his timing was only off by about two years.

  9. The Mad Men theme?

  10. The Supreme Court declined today to consider whether New York’s restrictions on carrying guns in public violate the Second Amendment.

    Thanks a lot, you fucking pussies. God forbid someone in New York’s right to bear arms would be uninfringed.

    I hate the Roberts Court more every day.

    1. I wish the Court was the fire breathing right wing monster the Left thinks it is.

      I mean, wouldn’t it be great if they started writing expansive opinions dismantling the New Deal?

      1. (gasp) Overturn SETTLED law?!

        (Justices faint)

    2. Roberts isn’t the problem, Kennedy is.

      Dollars to donuts Kennedy forced Scalia to insert all that boilerplate into Heller about “reasonable regulations” or else he’d vote with the liberal wing.

    3. Well that one really IS Bush’s fault.

  11. The Supreme Court declined today to consider whether New York’s restrictions on carrying guns in public violate the Second Amendment.

    Hopefully they’re waiting for a better case to hear. Either that or they’ve just got other shit to do that week.

    1. Fuck that. What could be better than having a case brought before the court where the entire purpose of the law is to completely disarm people outside the home?

      The Roberts Court is a stain on the underpants of American jurisprudence.

      1. Roberts just wanted to go down in history as a famous justice; too bad he’s more infamous than famous for the abominations he’s allowed to take place in his court. For every good case like Heller or McDonald, there’s Obamacare.

        1. Heller, McDonald’s, and Citizens United protected civil rights, while the Obamacare merely refused to overturn a stupid law on a technicality. Which one do you think is more important?

          1. Technicality? What the fuck are you talking about.

            1. The mandate functions exactly like a tax so Roberts decided to treat it as one. You can argue over whether SCOTUS should be doing proofreading for Congress but it doesn’t rise nearly to the level of civil rights violation.

          2. Okay, Tulpa, you want to talk civil rights? From his wikipedia page:

            Roberts wrote his first dissent in Georgia v. Randolph (2006). The majority’s decision prohibited police from searching a home if both occupants are present but one objected and the other consented. Roberts criticized the majority opinion as inconsistent with prior case law and for partly basing its reasoning on its perception of social custom. He said the social expectations test was flawed because the Fourth Amendment protects a legitimate expectation of privacy, not social expectations.

            Roberts authored the 2007 student free speech case Morse v. Frederick, ruling that a student in a public school-sponsored activity does not have the right to advocate drug use on the basis that the right to free speech does not invariably prevent the exercise of school discipline.

            Kelo may have been before his time, but even so, this court has been BAD.

            1. Not seeing how either of those opinions is problematic.

              In the first case, caveat roommate. Your cohabitant can consent to a search at any time you’re not there, so why should this change if you’re there?

              Second case, kids don’t and shouldn’t have full constitutional rights at school activities. Another case of libertarianism having trouble dealing with kids.

      2. The Roberts Court is a stain on the underpants of American jurisprudence.


    1. Eh, she doesn’t want a threesome, she wants to fool around with her friend, who is also married.

      I think I’d be ok with it, but it’s not like the dude is turning down a MFF, he’s turning down a “my wife is gonna go have sex with someone else “

      1. I don’t think the dude turned anything down, he’s just afraid that her proposal was one of the land-mines that the crazy person he lives with has set for him.

        Her: Would you like to have a three-way with another girl?

        Him: HELL YEAH!

        Her: You dirty pig, I know you didn’t really love me. I bet you have someone already picked out… (continue rant for next week)

        1. Those are easily handled.

          “You asked me a question, I gave an honest answer. If you didn’t like the answer, there’s the door. Don’t act like a freaking 12 year old, act like an adult.”

          1. They’re married (with kids, I think) so “there’s the door and half my shit, and support and alimony payments for the next ten years”

            So, just tip-toe around the land-mine…

            1. Ah yes. Marriage is the modern day equivalent of the sword of Damocles. If the thread holds, everything will be just fine.

              1. Mawage. Mawage is wot bwings us togeder tooday. Mawage, that bwessed awangment, that dweam wifin a dweam…

                1. That guy officiated my marriage. No shit.

                  1. Peter Cook? Who was the DJ, Dudley Moore?

        2. That’s lack of imagination on his part then.

          Her: Would you like to have a three-way with another girl?

          Him: Baby, you’re all I need, but I want you to be happy. If that’s really what you want, then I guess we can.

          Then she can fume and rage however she wants, but she can’t put him at fault.

          1. Then she can fume and rage however she wants, but she can’t put him at fault.


            Oh man I needed that laugh.

            1. I suppose it depends. I’ve seen some women put guys in shitty places just so they can convince their lady friends he’s awful. Some are just overtly crazy. Crazy there’s no winning, but if they’re just looking to paint an ugly picture it can be hilarious to subvert by framing everything as doting on her needs.

              (At least that’s what I’ve heard from being everyone’s “good listener” friend)

        3. Is that when you pull out your binders full of women?

    2. technically it wasn’t a threesome she sought. It was girl-girl stuff. And the girl she is thinking of is married. Still, cheating is cheating, even if with someone of the same sex. If he’s not okay with it, it’s not okay to do if you want to stay married.

    3. That does seem like a problem.

    4. Dear Kinky Mom: You should have thought about your and your husband’s different moral codes before you got married.

      1. I usually find the woman in these kind of letters to be unreasonable. But not there. People are made up of different traits and qualities. He really should be thankful he’s got a woman who’s a good mom and a good fuck. Too many times, you can get one or the other, but not both.

    5. I’m more concerned about the next letter, with the reply that of course they shouldn’t let someone take their son to the park, and they should report the person to their supervisor for “inappropriate” behavior.

      1. I’m more concerned about the next letter, with the reply that of course they shouldn’t let someone take their son to the park, and they should report the person to their supervisor for “inappropriate” behavior.

        I actually work in childcare. Hell for all I know this letter is from one of our patrons. It is actually quite unprofessional to initiate this kind of thing. It puts parents on the spot. If a parent wants to hire me or one of my coworkers for childcare after hours, that’s fine. But it’s not ok for us to reach out and initiate that kind of thing.

    6. Yeah, I think I misread what she was saying. A lot of kinky problems this week for Prudence to address.

    7. This type of thing is probably where the “bisexual=promiscuous” stereotype comes from. She’s trying to use the fact that she’s bisexual to justify sleeping with someone besides her husband.

      1. Eh, I mean…that’s one place where I’m more understanding of unfaithfulness. If you’re a real bisexual, as opposed to an attention whore sorority girl, then by getting married you’re shutting yourself off from theoretically half of your sexuality. Forever. So I see where she’s coming from. But obviously I see his point too.

        1. If you’re a monogamist then you are not shutting off your sexuality by being with one person, regardless of gender. That would only be true if you’re poly.

          1. Eh, I mean…I kind of consider it like….it’s not like she’s fucking the pool boy because he’s got a bigger dick. She wants to have a little fun that her husband is physically incapable of giving her. So I don’t see it so much as being unfaithful I guess.

            I don’t know, I’ve always been really open minded sexually, and I’ve always really had a thing for girls playing with girls. So maybe I just can’t step back enough on this.

            1. She wants to have a little fun that her husband is physically incapable of giving her. So I don’t see it so much as being unfaithful I guess.

              I find this view intriguing and were I not married would subscribe to your newsletter.

        2. I’m always a little torn on that. Say I have a mental checklist of things that are VERY IMPORTANT criteria, but I’d overall very happy with say 3/4 of them. Drawing that line is at bisexuality is a bit arbitrary.

          I suppose ideally she would’ve disclosed this from the outset and they could’ve negotiated allowances for it, but I don’t think that bisexuals ought to promise to be faithful and then get a pass when they aren’t, they should be upfront and prioritize finding someone who’s going to get off on his wife scissoring with the neighbor’s wife.

  12. Concern troll concerned about… Kansas. (The state, not the band.)

    1. Aww, sad dude is sad that Kansas isn’t as progressive as it used to be. Stupid evil extremists, not giving into progressives who are OBVIOUSLY right and never wrong.

  13. Krugnuts rides again.

    And European officials remain in deep denial about the fundamentals of the situation. They continue to define the problem as one of fiscal profligacy, which is only part of the story even for Greece, and none of the story elsewhere.

  14. Just when I thought the baseball article would be the stupidest bit of whining I’d read all week, here’s a Thatcher-bashing op-ed by the head of a steelworker’s union that simultaneously fellates Obama.

  15. All our efforts in Afghanistan have resulted in an increase in opium production for the third year in a row.

    It’s a definitive sign that all we need to do is fight the war on drugs harder.

    1. Dope & (spare) Change

  16. Aljazera continues to make itself look stupid:

    The real Kermit Gosnell story? Misogyny

    Which is why the “pro-life” claims of concern for Gosnell’s victims ring so hollow. For pro-lifers, this is an abortion story, and they are using it to argue that abortion should be outlawed – not taking the logical step to realise that Gosnell’s clinic is exactly what happens when abortion is outlawed or inaccessible. They are not lamenting the lack of media coverage because any such lack of coverage actually exists. They are claiming a lack of media coverage as a way to brow-beat mainstream media sources into covering the issue with their particular frame.

    Has anyone actually seen an article like that? Or are the gun-grabbers just projecting?

    1. See, this is the insanity of partisanship. In what way is the story of horrifying medical malpractice and outright murder being carried out in an actual abortion clinic not about abortion?

      Look, I am a big gun guy, and every time there is a mass shooting, I have to explain to many people why more gun control will not help. Stop whining, and argue your fucking points.

    2. Someone crunched the numbers and determined that late-term abortions cost a lot more than the legal abortions. Something like $300 in Philly compared to $1600. So why would any woman in Philly seek a late-term abortion that costs more?

      It’s not like Philly is run by pro-lifers, they have Planned Parenthood clinics.

    3. About the author:

      Jill Filipovic is a consultant, writer, speaker and recovering attorney. She assists fashion and lifestyle brands, legal organisations and law firms, international NGOs, non-profits and corporations in using new media to reach their business and strategic objectives.

      “That sounds like a perfectly reasonable fake job. Now where’s your real resume, sweetheart?”

    4. 1. Abortion is not outlawed or inaccessible.

      2. Bad thing X happens.

      3. Therefore, the happening of bad thing X shows what happens when abortion is outlawed or inaccessible.


      1. That made me think of this article.

        1. Exactly. This fallacy needs a name.

          1. Yeah my favorite is when someone will go from a paragraph lauding how the New Deal ushered in a wonderful era of justice and prosperity, and talk about how important it remains today.

            Then the next paragraph is about how dangerous libertarian extremists have destroyed the New Deal.

            I mean, it can’t be both.

          2. The Progressive Dipshit Fallacy


    1. Unfortunately, The Atlantic uses Disqus comments. (They’re even more of a memory hog than H&R.)

      1. We are all very grateful that you use what little memory you have to grace H&R with your presence 😉

      2. Reason takes up too much memory for you? What are you running on, like, 4 gigs of RAM?

        16 gigs or GTFO


        1. Talk to the IT department, not me, man.

  17. Op/ed in Detroit News disliking Obama living high on our dime:…../304140304

  18. Justin Bieber posts shirtless pictures of himself on Instagram a day after raising controversy over being vain and self-centered in his remarks about Anne Frank.

    Honestly I was more distressed to learn that millions of his followers had no idea who Anne Frank was.

    1. That was like a hundred years ago or something.

    2. That lesbian has great abs.

    3. Anne Frank? She sang “31 Flavors” didn’t she?

      1. No, Anne Frank was the chick from Eurythmics.

      2. No, Anne Frank was the chick from Eurythmics.

        1. That’s three times today. You win, squirrels.

        2. Are you double clicking the submit button?

          1. Not intentionally. My new computer’s touchpad is supposed to be one of the clickables but it’s been interpreting a touch as a click frequently. So… maybe?

          2. I double clicked Anne Frank once in Toledo.

    4. Fucking Canadians have no manners.

  19. I haven’t seen anything about claims of responsibility for the Boston bombings. You’d think AQ would be all over that if they had any idea it was going down. Unless they want it to be unclear.

    1. He fined himself. That’s good. It would have been awesome, though, if he’d sentenced himself to prison and ordered the bailiff to take him away.

      1. And, while doing that, shouted Al Pacino’s classic lines about the court being out of order.

  20. Valenti writes about “the marriage con”. Comes to the same conclusion as MRAs, but her reasoning is insane.

    1. I like how a single talking point from a group with less members then the average big city YMCA represents every single conservative in the country’s opinion on marriage.

    1. So wait, are the terrorists, drug cartels, and militia nuts buying their illegal guns through the gun show loophole or through BitCoins? I can’t keep up with the endless parade of hobgoblins.

      1. They’re using the gun show loophole and paying with bitcoins. They couldn’t pay with cash because fried chicken.

        Fuck, I dunno, man, I’m not crazy.

  21. AN ELEPHANT has overturned a vehicle carrying two tourists, injuring one of them, in South Africa’s Kruger National Park.

    1. Why haven’t they banned assault elephants?!

  22. Persona 4 is the JRPG I’ve always wanted, but never knew existed

    1. We used to make fun of my roommate a lot over Persona.

      “You’re in school right now. Why are you playing a video game pretending to be going to school?”


  23. Like anyone on Main Street America cares about the stupid Dow or gold prices, most cant afford either!

  24. Gold performed terribly on the market, suffering its worst fall in decades. China’s slower-than-expected growth is partly blamed.

    The fact that all bubbles burst is 99.9999% to blame.

    1. Bubble my ass. Try buying physical gold anywhere near the phony paper COMEX price. Not gonna happen.

  25. Why is the national media covering local crime stories like the one in Boston?

  26. KC Police officer shoots self in foot with AR-15; apparently the dog was too small/fast.

    1. The patrol officer was near his vehicle, loading a round in his AR-15 rifle when the rifle discharged.

      Gotta love the passive voice.

      1. Is that even passive voice? That’s basically anthropomorphizing the rifle, beyond even the usual effort to lick boot.

    2. Oh Dear God, the comments:

      Joaquin X Santiago ? 2 hours ago ?
      So … a well-trained officer, himself a firearms instructor, shoots himself in the foot. What perfect irony!

      (I know I’ll feel a lot safer when citizens of lesser skills are armed with AK-47s.)

      Yeah, the pig, who instructs other pigs how to handle weapons, shot himself, therefore you proles should never be allowed to defend yourselves ever.

  27. Why was everyone on Rand’s ass about the Howard speech? Coats says it isn’t because the media hates Rand.

    Rand Paul — skeptical of foreign war, skeptical of the drug war, skeptical of mass incarceration — is the most credible Republican to make that pitch. We don’t have any expectations for Steve King. Paul is different, and is being judged accordingly. You don’t get to do something striking and courageous (like Paul’s actual filibuster) and get judged by the standards of cowards.

    And almost every comment disagrees. Coates readers have no positive expectations of Rand whatsoever.

    1. Before the excerpt, I assumed they were bashing Ayn Rand for the Howard Roark speech. I was ready to pile on Gary Cooper, so as you would understand I’m rather disappointed.

      1. Coates has now seen how his audience weighs in on this, and has
        a new post up.

        But all of that is really beside the point. Rand Paul went to Howard University, lied, and then got his ass kicked. That’s not so bad. I got my ass kicked regularly at Howard. That was the reason my parents sent me there. But having gotten his ass kicked, his answer is to not to reflect but to make an allegation of racial discrimination.


        1. This, of course, assumes that communication is the goal. That was my assumption about Rand Paul. I was clearly wrong.

          …he writes, after not demonstrating so in the least.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.