Bloomberg Targets E-Cigarettes, Cop Punches Mentally Ill Teen Girl, Alec Baldwin May Get MSNBC Show: P.M. Links

|

  • Stop that, you!
    Credit: momentimedia / Foter / CC BY-NC-ND

    Nanny Michael Bloomberg is looking to ban flavored e-cigarettes, raise the tobacco age to 21, and prohibit cigarette advertising in stores in New York City.

  • A cop punched a 14-year-old mentally ill girl in the face at a Florida psychiatric facility and now the clinic's conditions are under investigation.
  • Illegal vaginal cavity searches of female drivers by Texas state troopers may be happening more frequently than has been noted by the media.
  • Alec Baldwin may be getting his own news show on MSNBC.
  • Members of Congress want President Obama to take a tougher attitude toward Vladimir Putin and Russia.
  • Silent Circle secure email service has followed Lavabit in shutting down rather than risk having to cooperate with federal government scrutiny.

Have a news tip for us? Send it to: 24_7@reason.com.

Get Reason.com and Reason 24/7 content widgets for your websites.

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

NEXT: Global Attitudes Toward America Back to 2002 Levels

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. Members of Congress want President Obama to take a tougher attitude toward Vladimir Putin and Russia.

    Cage match!

    1. I’d love to see President Noodles and His Merry Band of Pasty Congresscritters attempt to “get tough” with a psychopath like Putin.

      1. It’s two psychopaths, only one could pick his teeth with the other.

    1. Bullshit, it only took me a couple hundred hours to read that.

      1. Trying to get it onto my kindle. That may take five years…

        1. Are you using Calibre. It doesn’t work well with the Kindle Fire HD, but is quite handy for everything else. The only down side is you can’t Whisper Sync things loaded directly onto your Kindle (I read on my computer a bit when I’m at work and wouldn’t mind being able to keep that sync’d up with my Kindle).

          1. I put the .mobi file on google drive and will try to see if I can get it onto the Nexus and into Kindle that way. I started drinking so this isn’t going to be a 100% effort.

            1. The internet tells me that the best way to do this is to use the “Send to Kindle” application/webapp. This might put it in personal documents instead of books though. I’m not 100% sure. I know Calibre has a setting box to check to force the metadata to mark it as a book.

              1. Just tried that, but it won’t work. The file exceeds the 50 MB limit.

                Hmmm… Stupid question. Can I do a wired transfer to the Kindle?

                1. Yep. That’s how I’m doing it… downside, it goes to the documents folder so, I gather no sync’ing.

                  1. I’ve been having trouble with the send to kindle options. I did notice that you can sync bookmarks with personal docs. I don’t know if you’ll see this at this point.

                2. What are you reading that’s over 50mb? Calibre manages USB loading onto Kindles well (except the latest gen Kindle Fire HD), but you don’t get the benefit of syncing. This site gives an overly specific description of how to do a wired transfer using Calibre.

                  I’d be curious to see if you manually converted it to the appropriate mobi type and metadata and then sent it to kindle wirelessly if it would load in as a book. If I get a chance I’ll muck around with the metadata and see if I can force it to show up as a book via wireless.

  2. A cop punched a 14-year-old mentally ill girl in the face at a Florida psychiatric facility and now the clinic’s conditions are under investigation.

    Allowing the cops to enter is unacceptably putting lives at risk.

    1. That is absolutely right. I worked in one of those places. One punch gets you thrown in jail. That is not idle talk, it happened 2x while I was there.

      We absolutely never let the cops onto the patient units, and made them lock their handguns in the trunks of their cars before entering any buildings.

  3. “It’s 4:30 p.m. Do you know where your FoE is?”

    1. Damn. I hope Warty didn’t get to him.

    2. I was wondering the same thing. He was having a stroke or something the other day and bravely commented on, I can’t imagine what would keep him away now.

      1. Two nuns were sitting on a park bench, when a streaker ran right by them. One of the nuns had a stroke.

        The other one couldn’t reach that far.

      2. Not only no FoE, but no Episiarch, SugarFree, or Pro L.

        What do they know that we don’t? Is the Armaggedon prophecy finally coming true on the same weekend that Matt Damon puts out a politically retarded sci-fi movie?

        Well played, Ben Affleck, well played.

        1. Sounds like Epi’s mom is having an open house.

          1. So they Texas cops got them during a search?

        2. Maybe Obama’s speech earlier is like the video from The Ring. They watched it and now they’re dead.

        3. We’re all at a libertarian populist rally.

          1. Is anyone else?

            1. Oh, sure. There’s thousands of us, um, rallying. It’s a popular movement.

          2. You mean a Star Trek convention?

            Who are you dressed up as? I bet you dressed up as Picard just to piss Epi off.

        4. The NSA dragnet tightens.

    3. I do have a life, you know.

        1. He’s not lying, just making a funny.

      1. You slay me

  4. What are beer are you having the orphans bring you this weekend?

    1. I curse thee, no edit button!

      1. There is a preview button.

        1. PREVIEW is for weaklings.

    2. Does whiskey count as beer?

    3. My Imperial Red Ale turned out awesome. Best I’ve made since I restarted homebrewing.

      1. I haven’t homebrewed in months. Thinking about making a BSDA to hold until the holiday season. Love me some BSDA during the holidays.

    4. Glenlivet Nadurra 16. Beer is for pussies.

      1. Laphroaig Cairdeas.

        Speyside malts are for pussies.

        1. Straight lab grade ethanol. Anything less than 195 proof is for pussies.

          1. grain alcohol?

            real men drink wood alcohol.

          2. Its the 1% benzene that keeps me away from that mixture. Pretty sure you can’t do better than 190 on a single stage.

    5. I can’t get wrecked so my booze limit is one tonight along with whatever beer I feel like. Workout comes early on Saturday.

      1. My Saturday morning run in for clearing my head after drinking on Friday night. Of course since I’m a day ahead of you guys I have done both of those already.

    6. “Beer? That’s what my food drinks!”

      Wait, I think I did that wrong.

      OR VERY RIGHT.

      1. Whiskey: It’s what beer drinkers drink, when they’re not drinking beer.

        1. That’s… true.

          That said, I’m drinking rum Manhattans tonight. It’s technically summer, after all.

          1. I can’t think of when I’ve ever done a rum manhattan. Lots of regular bourbon ones, though.

            Cognac old-fashioned is another wonderful one to try (I wouldn’t bother with the rum old-fashioned again, though. Maybe with different bitters.)

            I think Negroni or gin and tonic for me tonight, but we’ll see where the night goes.

            1. They’re surprisingly good. Use a good dark rum of course.

              Negroni… I gotta pick up some Campari.

            2. I can’t think of when I’ve ever done a rum manhattan. Lots of regular bourbon ones, though.

              I’m a purist, so when you say “regular” I think “rye.”

        2. I don’t always drink beer… oh, who am I kidding.

          1. The worlds least interesting man?

    7. My own concoction that’s a simple Sierra Nevada Pale Ale clone.

    8. Ginger beer, and anejo tequila, lime juice and a splash of jalapeno juice to give it some kick. The Mexican Mule.

      1. That sounds very interesting. I don’t recall ever having a ginger beer.

        1. Bah, stop what you are doing and go procure Reed’s Extra Ginger Brew. I’ve tried many a commercial ginger beer and none of them stack up to what my uncle’s Jamaican ex-wife used to make this one is my favorite.

          Mix with dark rum and lime, whiskey and lime, or vodka and lime and enjoy.

          1. I’ve been to the Reed’s factory in South L.A. It was pretty cool (if you’re into raw industrial manufacturing facilities).

            1. Nice I didn’t realize it was located there. I didn’t realize it was a local product until I went looking for the website to link it and saw the guy had been at UCLA.

        2. Like ginger ale, only better. Spicier, stronger, often slightly fermented. Like Kambucha.

          1. You’re clearly a man of good taste Brett. I keep meaning to make jamaican ginger beer from scratch.

            I made a fully alcoholic version of it in college because my dorm rules stipulated that I could not bring alcohol into the dorm, but haven’t made a soda level version.

            1. Nice. I’m partial to the mexican mule, but the dark & stormy and the moscow mule are fine, too.

            2. Also, pass along a recipe some time, I’m interested in making something just enough ferment to bottle and carbonate.

    9. I bought a case of Beer Camp. Looking forward to it once it chills sufficiently.

  5. Government 2 – Phil Zimmermann 0

  6. Alec Baldwin may be getting his own news show on MSNBC.

    If Chloe Moretz is a regular guest I’m in.

    1. She is growing up to be a real cutie. Alec’s daughter is too. Looks much like her mother.

    2. Alec Baldwin may be getting his own news show on MSNBC.

      I can’t think of a single thing in the entire history of ever that would be more annoying than an Alec Baldwin show on MSNBC. He will make Olbermann look sane and reasoned in comparison.

  7. Nanny Michael Bloomberg is looking to ban flavored e-cigarettes.

    Great. I just got one year on the e-cigs this month after 28 years of Marlboro. They’re the only substitue that’s ever worked for me. ASSHOLE!

    1. BUT BUT!!! You might enjoy it!!!

    2. Aren’t e-cigarettes far less unsafe than regular cigarettes?

      Bloomberg only wants people to know the same joy he does, which is the joy of getting off on banning other people’s pleasures.

    3. “This is a de facto ban on electronic cigarettes,” says Dr. Michael Siegel, a professor of Community Health Sciences at the Boston University School of Public Health and a supporter of electronic cigarettes. “Pretty much all electronic cigarettes are flavored; they’re essentially flavored products. You’re basically telling a bunch of ex-smokers to go back to cigarettes.”
      Dr. Siegel adds, “I think this would be a public health disaster.”

      BUT SMOKING IS EVIL!

      /Michael Bloomberg, R.N.

      1. Sturmbannf?hrer Michael Bloomberg, R.N.

        FTFY. It even has ban in it.

        1. No, R.N. stands for “RINO Nanny.”

          1. RINO

            He’s not even that anymore.

      2. You’re basically telling a bunch of ex-smokers to go back to cigarettes.”

        So increased tax revenue.

    4. You know what’s really hard? Taking a 40 minute round trip train ride for $4 to get your yearly supply of ecig juice. NYC’s tobacco policies are completely not rooted in reality; Bloomberg governs like there’s a huge wall around the five boroughs preventing anyone from leaving.

      Hey Mike, there’s a reason why cigarette bootlegging is such big business in your city. All you’re doing is creating another underground market.

      1. I get all my e-cig supplies on the internet. How exactly would they stop they? Could they even when it is perfectly legal?

        1. NSA + DEA/ATF.

          1. Ya, probably not a good idea to just challenge them to get you outright.

      2. NYC’s tobacco policies are completely not rooted in reality

        I live in NYC but I buy my cigarettes in Jersey City on my way home from work for $4 less per pack. It’s like going back in time a decade.

    5. Fuck Bloomberg in the ass with a rusty chainsaw, that petty tyrant motherfucker.

  8. Alec Baldwin may be getting his own news show on MSNBC.

    I wonder what all the “toxic little queens” out there will think.

    1. The Irish need to start repudiating him they’ve been represented by histrionic Alec Baldwins for too long.

      1. I was just thinking that if he didn’t go into acting, he would be retiring this year after a career of being a corrupt and abusive cop.

  9. So when are we gonna get a sympathetic bio of Ernst Roehm? I mean he was a gay man martyred by Hitler due to his sexuality and his opposition to corporations, the military and aristocracy.

    1. Reason loves corporations though.

      1. Well the German Corporations were rife with cronyism. Not to mention I wasn’t necessarily referring to Reason writing a sympathetic bio of Roehm.

    2. You know who else was punished due to his opposition to the existing regime?

      1. Michael Hastings?

        1. Hawkman?

      2. Arod?

      3. Anwar and Abdulrahman al-Awlaki?

    3. don’t summon Underzog.

  10. Just a little more of that Progressive Love and Respect that we’ve all come to Love and Respect…

    It does well to step back once in awhile and remember that the leaders in the conservative movement see their followers not as fellow travelers working towards a common political goal so much as marks. Which isn’t to say that the leaders don’t actually buy into the bigoted worldview. In fact, I’d say that the contempt for humanity that causes them to want to ban abortion, slash the social safety net, support people who murder unarmed kids in the streets, and start wars for the hell of it allows conservative leaders to view their followers as just one more group of people who don’t deserve your sympathy if they can’t see through your bullshit.

    Nothing about conservatives loving it when a woman cries out from pain at getting semen in their eyes? And here I thought we were dealing with a professional.

    1. ?? I guess I am conservative.

    2. Hey, when you conservatively ejaculate into a woman’s eyes, then she’s kind of like a mark too.

      1. Swallowers never have that problem.

    3. She obviously isn’t self-aware of the constant Projection Splooge she shoots everywhere.

      1. Epi really is onto something here.

        1. My advice for her is to look up where the term ‘useful idiot’ comes from. Followed by the confessions of Great Society leaders who put the ‘safety net’ programs in place as to their real agenda, and then on to the origins of the progressive ideology and how they evolved from eliminating undesirables to taming them and using them for political purposes.

    4. slash the social safety net

      Comsotarianism and left-libertarianism works!

      1. One thing I like about the Libertarian Populist movement is it allows left libertarians to move towards a more tenable position given everything that has happened since 2008 to undermine their previous ideological commitments. I’m fine with that, the more allies the better.

        1. It didn’t work before. They have to totally abandon this idea that more state control is better. Until they do that, they are enemies, not potential allies.

    5. I’m guessing this is Marcotte. Has she ever engaged one of the youngish libertarian/conservative members of the blogosphere on these issues? I wonder if someone like McArdle would be interested in having a back and forth exchange with Marcotte that would eventually get cross-posted at slate and bloomberg (I think that’s where McSuderman is now). Even if McArdle couldn’t change Marcotte’s mind, at least maybe the readers would see each of them for what they are. McArdle: smart and reasonable. Marcotte… not so much.

      Marcotte would never agree to such a thing so this is pointless to think about.

      1. Feminism is a closed system, intellectually. People talk about “extreme” ideologies, but there is a qualitative difference between closed systems and open systems in that respect. Libertarianism is an open system: it makes all its premises known, requires and relies on no insider terminology to explain itself, and freely debates people from other ideologies using a variety of premises. At one point (roughly before gaining a real shot at power), socialism was also an open system.

        Feminism and other cults are closed — they don’t care for people finding out what they believe and make it so that you have to wade through arcane terminology and theory before you can figure out what they are on about. The manner of debate runs in a course orthogonal to that of any other discipline; in some cases logic and reason are themselves attacked as patriarchal ways of thinking. No one outside the movement is allowed to influence it.

        There is no point to debate if the ideology is a closed system.

        1. I agree with everything you said, except there’s no point to debating or exchanging ideas with feminists. I think there are some rational “feminists” out there who might walk away from seeing an exchange between a McArdle and a Marcotte and think, “hey, maybe Marcotte isn’t right about everything.” Of course, some will probably just pull that “internalized the patriarchy” crap and not learn a single thing or even accept that people who don’t agree with them have a point.

          1. Oh, I didn’t mean there’s no point in us debating or having dialogue with feminists. We should debate everyone at any time under a variety of terms, and that includes modern feminists.

            It’s that there would be no point for someone like Marcotte to debate *us*. “Rational feminists” in the sense that you are thinking are not encouraged; a bad result or loss in a debate from a feminist point of view is encouraged to be viewed as that particular feminist’s failing or something that could be better explained by someone from another camp *within* the feminist movement. Marcotte would lose readership if she were to debate on a regular basis; she would be seen as a “bad feminist” and her readers would either stop being feminists or move on to a feminist more skillful at insulating her readers from foreign influences.

            1. Yeah, I definitely agree with that. Anyone who disagrees is “the worst” and no amount of reason or evidence can sway them otherwise.

              One thing I struggle with is that my girlfriend eats Jezebel up. She’s an intelligent person in the grand scheme of things, and honestly one of the most privileged (in the genuine sense of the word) people I’ve ever met, and yet she loves Jezebel. She thinks World’s Funniest Human is actually funny. It’s very hard for me to hold my tongue. She also gets upset with me when I use reason and logic to say why I disagree with her. That makes me “mean.” I keep hoping someday that I’ll get through to her, but she’s probably thinking the same thing about me.

        2. Eh, I don’t know. I think any ideology can be closed, if the person believing in it thinks of it that way. By “closed” I mean something like “entirely self-contained,” so that contrary evidence can be dismissed as a trick of the enemy or false consciousness or whatever. Also, having premises that cannot be disproved.

          Granted, some ideologies are more susceptible to that sort of thing than others. Marxism is particularly bad. Feminism certainly can be. But I think the closed aspect is ultimately the fault of the individual believer.

          1. True, but once the influence of individual members of an ideology is such that terms are not defined, statements are not provable, and debate/dialogue is not possible or meaningful outside of the community, I think it’s safe to characterize your ideology as “closed” — at least, until its “open” members have corrected the ground rules of how debate and dialogue are conducted in a more “open” direction.

            Milt Friedman became popular and well-known in the libertarian movement not in spite of a successful synthesis between Keynesian and Classical thought, but because of it. I don’t know how a feminist would undertake the same type of feat in respect to their ideology.

  11. “Alec Baldwin may be getting his own news show on MSNBC.”

    No he won’t.

    News shows and MSNBC are mutually exclusive.

    So he may be getting some kind of program but it won’t be a news show.

    1. “News shows” on MSNBC are what other networks call “sitcoms.”

    2. I hope he does the whole thing in his character from 30 Rock.

  12. Self Defense Alive And Well In England

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..boxer.html

    Though if he wasn’t a former boxer still in decent shape, but a weakling using a swordcane instead of his fist he would have got a decade in prison instead of praise.

    1. That picture of the perp with the colored wig is…Jesse, can we get a ruling?

      1. A complete douchebag? Very punchable?

        I’m pretty sure he’s on team straight.

      2. Funny, but I don’t even recall seeing a picture of Mr. Walker’s mug, so I went searching and now I think I know why. Sometime in the mid 90’s he stole this guys identity:

        http://whitfieldga.genealogyvi…..Walker.jpg

  13. How are the police supposed to find illegal vagina cavities if not by searching for them?

    1. Sense of smell? It’s Always Sunny had a movie pitch about this.

      1. Dolph Lundgren smelling crime? Count me in.

  14. Only jackasses have a problem with this.

    No Homicide Charges For Teen Who Shot And Killed A Man With An Illegal Gun, Thanks To Stand Your Ground

    1. His real crime was defending himself without begging the state do it for him.

    2. But he was a community choir director!

      OTOH he got out of his car!

    3. Nice comments too. It’s amazing how many of their opinions are refuted by the article. They just know racism is involved somehow.

    4. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that since there’s no picture of the defendant, this is a black-on-black dispute.

      What Stand Your Ground means is that Pierson got to make the choice to fire his gun with little consequence, rather than do what his companions did, and spare a life by running away.

      After some dude nearly ran them down and then threatened them with physical violence. I’ll bet the next dude in that neighborhood who has a bunch of dudes cuss him for driving too close just goes on about his business.

      1. Correct on all counts.

    5. The kid who got exonerated was black; I suspect the dead guy was, too.

      According to what appears to be the prosecution’s version of events,

      “Two friends who were with Pierson at the time of the incident said they were walking down the street when Jacobs “almost hit” them with his SUV, driving at high speed. Pierson yelled at the driver to slow down. Jacobs slowed down and had a “hostile exchange” with Pierson as he passed them by. Jacobs then pulled into a driveway and interacted with another individual in what the teens suspected was a drug exchange. As the teens walked by, he told them he had something for them. The teens continued walking and shortly after that, Jacobs drove toward them, got out of the car, and swung a heavy stick in their direction while yelling at Pierson. One of the teens said he ran away from Jacobs as he was driving toward them, fearing that he was going to try to run them over. Pierson fired his gun.”

      Some choir director that guy was! I wonder whether, the previous Sunday, he sang something about taking everything to God in prayer. What did he pray – “Lord, help me run over these punks who disrespected me – help me advance on them with a raised stick and smite – oh, shit, he’s got a gun! Why must men of God such as myself be so persecuted?

      1. What the dead guy did was worse even than what Zimmerman was *accused* of doing. Nobody claimed Z tried to run over Martin.

  15. Bloomberg Targets E-Cigarettes, Cop Punches Mentally Ill Teen Girl, Alec Baldwin May Get MSNBC Show…

    Fuck me – That is Famine, War, and Pestilence.

    Did I miss Obama’s pale horse at the gum-flapping?

  16. Proggies love lying with statistics.

    Minority-Owned Small Businesses Get Stiffed On Federal Contracts
    BY BRYCE COVERT ON AUGUST 8, 2013 AT 1:58 PM

    Of the $98.2 billion in federal government contracts awarded to small businesses last year, minority-owned businesses got a proportionally small slice of the pie, according to Bloomberg News. Hispanic-owned companies netted just 8.4 percent of that total, or $8.21 billion, despite making up 17 percent of the population. Businesses owned by black Americans won about 7.2 percent, or $7.1 billion, even though they are 13 percent of the population.

    1. I knew the fallacy after the first line. The proggies need to up their game.

    2. Oh, sweet Jesus. That’s pathetic.

      Today I ate a third of the lunch in my family, even though I make up less than 1% of the population. If that’s not unfair, I don’t know what is.

    3. What percentage of all small businesses do these minorities own?

      1. Thanks for spoiling the joke, ProL.

        1. Sorry, I typed too quickly.

      2. They don’t ask the comparable question for any other kind of affirmative action, why start now?

      3. Less than the percentage they’re getting. Also this:

        The exclusion from government contracts is just one of many challenges facing minorities in the economy

        Is a flat out lie.

        1. That was the first thing I thought about. Government–in my mind, quite illegally–favors minority and other special-status parties in awarding business.

          1. Whenever someone uses “minorities” to mean “blacks and Hispanics” instead of, you know, “minorities” there’s bound to be some shenanigans.

            1. Not to mention women, who aren’t a minority.

    4. The windowlicking morons who wrote that article have absolutely zero idea how federal contracting works. I spent quite a bit of time in the federal side of the IT world and can assure you that if the law says “10% of RFQs under this contract go to minority or veteran or woman owned business,” then 10% of the RFQs are set aside for those business. Whether the businesses actually respond to those RFQs is another matter entirely.

      My company was selected as a vendor for several large IT contracting vehicles (SEWP, ECS III, Netcents, etc.) and we didn’t even see the set-aside RFQs. They didn’t come to us at all.

      As an aside, set-aside contracts are a fucking scam. Some of the businesses who claim to be minority/veteran/woman owned are nothing more than a desk, a phone and a chair. They will leech onto deals larger companies are working just because the RFQ has to go to a set-aside.

      Some of them are legit but a shitload are basically shells.

      1. My pop works for Big Food and says there are a decent number of “Minority-owned Businesses” in the industry that just buy from a real company and then re-sell to the government.

        1. I’ve heard, but don’t know firsthand, that MBEs are often minority in name only. Like most kinds of welfare or subsidy, such programs are likely riddled with fraud.

          1. One of the things that corrupt construction companies used to do was to put the business in the wife’s name after a scandal. There was an expose a few years back about companies in PA getting more state contracts after corruption charges because the businesses were now female owned.

          2. I would say more so with women “owned” business with her at the top and hubbie at number two but actually runs the place.

          3. Now you know. I worked for one where a rich guy who happened to be hispanic got him a nice line. And another who had his hispanic wife as the owner. I’m not sure they were getting the fraudulent set-asides, but unless you count the dot-Indians who are ubiquitous in government contracting in Tallahassee, weren’t no disadvantaged minorities getting ahead on those contracts.

          4. Happens all the time. I’ve experienced it firsthand. A company we used to sub some of our deals out to was “Women Owned” but I don’t think the wife ever worked there at all. Her husband ran the place. She owned 51% but he did all the work while she was a stay at home Mom.

  17. Feel the empowerment, my sisters…

    Unless the world has drastically changed in the few years since I was single and young, young women are reluctant to go on the pill or have condoms on hand while single, lest parents see them as failures or partners see them as “sluts.” And I highly doubt that the world has been cleansed of guys who try to talk their way out of wearing a condom. Yes, yes, young women “should” be strong and empowered and never, ever worry about impressing the guy they’re eager to sleep with, but that “should” appears to be doing very little to prevent unintended pregnancy. Which is why things like the HHS rule requiring insurance companies to cover contraception?including the ones that are the least time-consuming and easiest to hide but also happen to cost the most upfront, such as shots and the IUD?can do a lot to offer young women physical protection when the superhuman strength we expect of them all the time fails in the heat of the moment.

    Yes, remembering to use a pill requires almost God-like levels of self-discipline and sheer strength of will! Also, someone smarter than me needs to explain how making these things economically more viable has dick to do with any of the “problems” she brings up.

    1. In fact, let’s up the ante — whoever explains that to me best in, ahem, Marcotte-like prose gets a free, one-of-a-kind feminist sex toy courtesy of Amanda Marcotte’s personal collection!

    2. young women are reluctant to go on the pill or have condoms on hand while single, lest parents see them as failures or partners see them as “sluts.”

      IOW, young women have no self-determination and only do things to please other people. But don’t worry! Amanda is totally here to help!

      1. Modern feminism really does come from a place of utter loathing and infantilization of any women not completely immersed in the feminist bubble.

        1. It’s not just feminism. A lot of groups are self-defined by whether or not you believe in their group think. If you do, hey, you’re in with the cool kids. If you don’t, you’re to be pitied and “helped.” Disagree with the group think echo chamber? That’s only because you’re you’re a poor little lamb who has lost your way.

          1. That’s one reason I like posting these links (well, that and Amanda is just a fun target). Feminism really is a microcosm of everything that’s wrong with identity politics and “solidarity” projects — they will always end up as closed systems with little connection to reality or to their opponents.

            1. Is it just ‘identity politics and “solidarity projects”? It seems to me every ideology and movement is prone to think they are right and others are benighted, at best, and that leads to talking only to each other most of the time.

              1. No, but it’s characteristic of those movements.

                A closed system is where your ideological ecosystem is restricted to whatever terms and intellects you have within that ideology (at least, when it comes to what that ideology claims as its purview). So for example, if you’re in a Christian closed system, you can only derive your worldview from Christian books, Christian TV, etc — to do otherwise you have to leave the ideology altogether. An extreme example of this would be the Amish movement. An open system is the opposite — you can look outside and engage those outside your movement without being fundamentally not “of the tribe”. A good example of this in the Christian tradition would be the scholastic movement’s attempts to engage Platonism and such.

                Libertarians (as one example) look outside themselves quite often; they don’t polish up George Orwell as being suitably libertarian before accepting certain things he said as being right on the money and routinely engage in dialogue with differing intellectual traditions to refine their own views.

                Feminism doesn’t have a similar component. Any refinement of views and dialogue has to come from an internal source and from camps within the movement.

                1. I don’t see either movement that way, and I am a libertarian and my wife would probably qualify as a feminist.

                  I see feminists favorably quoting and using non-feminist thinkers and principles quite a bit (I am a law student and see this from feminist legal theorists-note, I don’t think much of this work overall but they are quite willing to engage non-feminist theory) and I think many libertarians don’t ‘look outside themselves’ in the sense of finding value in, say, anti-libertarians very much.

                  1. I see feminists favorably quoting and using non-feminist thinkers and principles quite a bit

                    Like who? Intersectionality and legal thinking doesn’t count since neither subject is claimed to be within the specific purview of feminism. Gender relations, OTOH, is.

                    It is almost impossible to find a feminist linking to a non-feminist source for something that they find either an interesting or illuminating insight about gender and gender politics without it having been pre-cleared by feminist thinkers beforehand. A libertarian can find merit in works by others or otherwise use them to refine his views; not too long ago many libertarians were discussing the merits and demerits of Chris Hayes’ book on plutocracy.

                    You’re not going to find feminists thoughtfully examining books on gender written outside their tradition, or finding any interest in reading such outside of as opposition research.

                    1. The feminist legal writers I have read are certainly feminists. They believe there is a patriarchy which ‘holds women down,’ that this patriarchy’s reach is broad and deep and can be found in areas from art to politics to law. They happen to write about the law. And they are quite willing to take prominent legal theorists from outside their tradition (many who died not knowing ‘feminism’ existed in any modern sense) and discuss the implications of their ideas for the overall ‘project of feminism.’

                      It seems to me be a dodge to say feminist legal scholars ‘don’t count’ because they write about a subject that is not the sole purview of feminism. These writers I am talking about certainly see themselves as overall feminist who happen to write about law primarily.

                    2. And they are quite willing to take prominent legal theorists from outside their tradition (many who died not knowing ‘feminism’ existed in any modern sense) and discuss the implications of their ideas for the overall ‘project of feminism.’

                      …which is irrelevant unless those theorists are talking specifically about gender issues.

                      An Amish person isn’t likely to be informed by Christian doctrine in the area of, say, large scale irrigation techniques — but in the area where Amish theology makes a claim as having a superior truth claim, an Amish person is definitely operating under a closed system.

                      Who cares if a feminist is citing William Blackstone as a legal authority on common law in making an argument that common law was patriarchial; feminism doesn’t make any claims about common law and interpretation of gender roles is still kept safely in the feminist ecosystem.

                    3. Wait just a minute, are you claiming that feminists are different from libertarians in that the former are less likely to adopt work that undercuts their ideology? Do you see quite a bit of libertarians quoting socialists (other than to point to them as being crazy, evil or confirming how crazy or evil they are)? If you do I would like to see that.

                    4. And mind you, quoting socialists where they (the socialists) are arguing against libertarian beliefs.

                    5. Do you see quite a bit of libertarians quoting socialists (other than to point to them as being crazy, evil or confirming how crazy or evil they are)?

                      Yes. I refer you to the recent reaction to Chris Hayes’ book (whose book was not libertarian), and Glenn Greenwald’s work with CATO as a couple examples among many. From an economic point of view, I can confirm that I’ve seen libertarian economists in the Chicago school reference Kantorovich (the only Communist from the USSR to win a Nobel in Economics) and discuss various aspects of his work on centralized pricing and other aspects of the economy.

                    6. Do you see quite a bit of libertarians quoting socialists (other than to point to them as being crazy, evil or confirming how crazy or evil they are)?

                      Yes, all the time, and not just socialists, but from every political and philosophical school of thought.

                      See: Hans Hermann Hoppe stating conclusions of Marxist theory of history “all…are essentially correct.”; Milton Friedman defending government monopoly in cases of neighborhood effects (Capitalism and Freedom); Hayek defending a limited social safety net as justified (Constitution of Liberty).

                      Rothbard in particular drew on a wide range of non-libertarian thinkers from all over the spectrum, and his moral philosophy is heavily influenced by Thomas Aquinas (The Ethics of Liberty). Many Misesians are particularly interested in Max Stirner, Nietzsche, and Schopenhauer.

                      Despite the cardboard caricature drawn of libertarianism, as purging deviationists for their impurity, it actually might be one of the most open-minded schools of thought in terms of analyzing and adapting ideas from opposing philosophies.

                  2. I think many libertarians don’t ‘look outside themselves’ in the sense of finding value in, say, anti-libertarians very much.

                    That’s just plain stupid. Libertarianism as a real ideology is very new compared to classical liberalsim, conservatism, socialism, communism, etc. The vast majority of thinkers, writers, philosophers, and political leaders a libertarian quotes or references were not libertarians.

                    Ayn Rand, Thomas Jefferson, George Orwell are three off the top of my head who were not libertarians, but are quoted often by libertarians.

                    1. We tend to quote those people where they agree with us, no? Feminists quote non-feminists that agree with them all the time.

                      BTW-as an aside, I would count Ayn Rand as a libertarian. I know she would not have, but I would.

                    2. Do you see quite a bit of libertarians quoting socialists (other than to point to them as being crazy, evil or confirming how crazy or evil they are)?

                      We tend to quote those people where they agree with us, no? Feminists quote non-feminists that agree with them all the time.

                      You contradict yourself. You first asked if libertarians quote proponents of opposing ideologies, then state that it doesn’t count if they agree on the points which they quote. Why else would they quote someone, other than to agree with or disagree with that position?

              2. Thinking you’re right doesn’t preclude examining your arguments and changing your mind.

                It seems like “identity politics and “solidarity projects” pretty much does preclude examining your arguments because you aren’t making arguments that can be refuted.

                1. I am not sure that identity politics thinking do not make arguments that can be refuted. Feminists arguments, as I understand them, can be boiled down to essentially state that men in general have created cultural and legal ‘rules’ which ‘oppress’ women in general in a variety of ways. Women should realize this and that it is general and therefore women in general should work together in opposing it.

                  Whatever the merits of the argument overall, it seems refutable or confirmable.

                  1. Whatever the merits of the argument overall, it seems refutable or confirmable.

                    Refuted by the patriarchal “logic”?

                    Even if something can be refuted, does that really have any effect? Let’s say, for example, that the idea that women get paid less for the same work has been refuted in apples-to-apples comparisons and that, further, young women without children make more than young men without children.

                    How many feminists have abandoned that talking point?

                    1. -Even if something can be refuted, does that really have any effect?

                      Isn’t this changing the goal posts? You claimed don’t make refutable claims, but it seems they do. Now you seem to be arguing that because many stubbornly resist or try to refute evidence to the contrary of their claims this makes them somehow different than other ideologies.

                      Certainly we libertarians would never argue with what are held out as things shown demonstrably by many ‘studies!’

                    2. Isn’t this changing the goal posts? You claimed don’t make refutable claims, but it seems they do.

                      No. I’m talking about from their perspective. It matters not how often, how vigorously, and how completely, say, Marcotte is “refuted” if it has no impact on her arguments.

                    3. She doesn’t think she’s been refuted NEM. Likewise most libertarians don’t think they have been refuted by the ton of studies by historians, economists and the like that are hurled at us when we talk with non-libertarians. But guess what? Those non-libertarians leave those discussions saying ‘can you believe how that libertarian clung to his beliefs after we presented all that refutation?’

                  2. Feminists arguments, as I understand them, can be boiled down to essentially state that men in general have created cultural and legal ‘rules’ which ‘oppress’ women in general in a variety of ways.

                    As that is described by feminists, it’s an unfalsifiable hypothesis. For an argument to hold weight as a logical one, it must have some way that it can be meaningfully refuted and must make specific claims that apply in the real world.

                    1. Logic is an oppressive cultural rule.

                    2. Certainly not all feminists believe that logic is an oppressive cultural rule.

                    3. Certainly not all feminists believe that logic is an oppressive cultural rule.

                      The ones in the “skeptic” community, where logic is supposed to rule, do. Google skeptic and “vulcan logic”.

                    4. I have no doubt some do. I have doubt all do.

                      I even have doubt that most do.

                    5. I even have doubt that most do.

                      Which is more likely? So many do that even the ones who are supposed to value it do not, or the few that do just happened to join a movement that is antithetical to it?

                    6. “Rape culture” is the perfect example of what I mean.

                      Does the term have a straightforward meaning? No.

                      Can it be proven as a concept (or more scientifically, is there some test which could disprove it?)

                      Hell no.

                      Yet rape culture is an enormous, perhaps central part of modern feminism.

                      It is probably unfair to characterize, say, the feminism of Frederick Douglass as being closed, but it’s definitely appropriate to characterize the modern women’s movement that way.

                    7. I am not sure about any of that.

                      I would guess that ‘rape culture’ refers to cultural beliefs and practices which encourage or diminishes the awfulness of rape.

                      I don’t see how that is any more or less measurable than things like ‘culture of poverty’ or ‘culture of dependency’ which I see thrown around by libertarians quite a bit.

                    8. Culture of poverty has identifiable characteristics. I can point to, as the biggest problem among black youth, the fact that working hard in school is considered to be the act of an Uncle Tom. When intelligence and discipline is considered to be the act of a race traitor, you have a culture of poverty.

                      Rape, on the other hand, is the only crime where the accusation of a victim is given ironclad credence. The amount of physical evidence needed for a rape conviction in the American judicial system is fantastically low. There are hundreds, possibly thousands of men in jail right now for sex that was either completely consensual or rape only if you discard the entire standard of reasonable doubt.

                      Oh, and that’s really what feminists mean when they talk about “rape culture”. They hate that rapists get a fair trial in an adversarial process. Marcotte would be entirely on board with reversing the standard of proof for rape cases.

                    9. If they exist I would think identifiable characteristics of rape culture would be as unproblematic as your culture of dependency ones.

                      If there is a rape culture then there would exist attitudes and legal rules/practices that encourage or diminish the awfulness of rape. Feminists that I have read point to things like ‘she was asking for it’, the prevalence of ‘rape themed’ pornography, legal practices which they claim make it hard to prove rape, and practices such as not giving the victim a larger voice in the investigation, trial and sentencing phase.

                      Now, you may think these things would not prove a rape culture. I myself think that. But they seem like ‘identifiable characteristics’ that either are there or not to a certain degree as much as ‘intelligence and discipline being considered the act of a race traitor’ is to a culture of poverty.

                    10. Feminists that I have read point to things like ‘she was asking for it’,

                      Except usually this is brought up by defense attorneys. We say the job of the defense attorney is to present the best possible defense. Which is a polite way of saying that a good defense lawyer will do whatever he can to destroy the prosecution’s case. It’s not his job to put his client away, it’s the state’s job.

                      the prevalence of ‘rape themed’ pornography,

                      The issue with labeling this a rape culture thing is that women consume huge amounts of rape themed porno. 4 in 10 women admit to fantasizing about rape on a regular basis. The real number is probably higher. It’s not men who buy the romance novels about being kidnapped by pirates or highland lairds.

                      legal practices which they claim make it hard to prove rape, and practices such as not giving the victim a larger voice in the investigation, trial and sentencing phase.

                      Yeah, like I said, they are perfectly willing to throw out presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt, and burden of proof in order to throw every man some woman accuses of rape in jail.

                    11. 1) “Poverty” and “dependency” are fairly well-defined terms with defined and universally understood meaning both within and outside the libertarian movement, even if they are relative. “Rape” in the feminist lexicon is far from that.

                      2) “Culture of poverty/dependency” is not even close to being a foundational tenet of libertarianism, and is debated regularly within the movement. Not all libertarians believe it exists, and not all libertarians should. “Rape culture” in modern feminism is something intrinsic to the feminist movement.

                      3) I said nothing about “measuring” rape culture, but rather about proving its existence. I’d argue that one can construct tests vis a vis culture of dependency; rape culture is about as provable a concept as Lucifer is.

                    12. Poverty and dependency are ‘fairly well defined terms with defined and universally understood meaning both within and outside the libertarian movement?’ I have seen discussions here at Hit and Run essentially about how we don’t ‘really have any poor people’ in the United States. Conceptions of poverty vary quite widely. Is it poverty in income? Wealth? Connections? Is it ‘absolute’ poverty? ‘Relative’ poverty? And if the latter then what defines it? I don’t find most feminist definitions of rape to be any more ‘open for discussion’ than that. And dependency is even worse!

                      Rape culture is not as fundamental to feminist theory as you state. It is one ‘manifestation of patriarchy.’

                      How would you construct a test vis a vis culture of dependency? How would it be different than the test for patriarchy I propose downthread (and mind you, patriarchy is broader than ‘rape culture’).

                    13. A concept need not be absolute to be well defined (think “fast” or “short”). Poverty is the *relative* absence of resources in society, and a “culture of poverty” is a proposed series of mass beliefs that its exponents believe contribute to an individual remaining in relative absence. It is highly testable provided that one can identify the populations which hold these beliefs.

                      Rape culture is not. Rape in the feminist lexicon is constantly changing and defined almost at odds with the straightforward definition, and there is no way to reasonably test it when the “rape culture” is hypothesized to include almost all human beings and the ordinary definition of rape as a crime is not even close to a universal behavior (relative poverty is a mass phenomena hypothesized “culture” is not universal so it can be reasonably studied).

                      Rape culture is not as fundamental to feminist theory as you state.

                      Find me a modern mainstream feminist who disagrees with the existence of the concept.

                    14. -Poverty is the *relative* absence of resources in society

                      This is certainly controversial. The entire point of the ‘we do not have any poor people in the US’ argument that one hears frequently in conservative and libertarian circles demonstrates that. And of course there is huge disagreement over what should be included in that ‘resources’ and ‘absence.’

                      Likewise ‘rape’ among feminists is not nearly as amorphous as you describe. There are broader and less broad definitions, but they certainly cluster around the idea of less than fully consensual sex.

                      I really think the when corrected for these facts, the two converge in the difficulty in which they can be tested.

                    15. less than fully consensual sex.

                      Find me someone writing under the label “feminist” who doesn’t believe that badgering a significant other til they obtain consent is rape. Cause I haven’t seen one. And they’re definitely obtaining consent.

                    16. I would guess that ‘rape culture’ refers to cultural beliefs and practices which encourage or diminishes the awfulness of rape.

                      That doesn’t encompass their linking of due process and videogames with attractive models to it.

                    17. It wouldn’t? I think they would claim that some elements of our legal system make rape ‘easier to get away with’ or that videogames depicting certain things foster pro-rape messages.

                      You (and I btw) might disagree on the grounds that that is not the purpose or effect of these things, but notice that they are readily ‘identifiable characteristics’ which one can point to.

                    18. You (and I btw) might disagree on the grounds that that is not the purpose or effect of these things,

                      If just saying something is “rape culture”, without providing any evidence, then it really doesn’t matter what the definition of rape culture is. Which means that it is definitely not falsifiable.

                    19. If just saying something is “rape culture” without providing any evidence

                      left that out.

                    20. Is it unfalsifiable as I just presented it?

                    21. Yes. I wouldn’t necessarily cast aspersions on whether the body of your philosophy is falsifiable unless your other claims are equally broad or undefined, but that claim is certainly too vague to be falsified.

                      Want to know how something is falsifiable? Construct a test or scenario under which it can be falsified. If no such test can be constructed, your claim cannot be falsified. In practice, this is the case for almost everything in feminism due to an arcane, constantly shifting lexicon without definite meaning. (Bizarre, unnecessary lexicon is a good marker that you’ve stumbled into a closed system, btw.)

                    22. I agree it is broad, but as I said above no more (or not much more) broad than ‘culture of dependency’ or ‘anti-capitalist mentality.’

                      There are lots of ways to measure the claim that there is a patriarchy that oppresses women. Take specific instances in areas of law, politics, culture, etcetera, and see if they seem to favor men over women for no good reason. Analyze practices, assumptions, stated goals, etcetera, for bias.

                    23. As always, I’ve enjoyed the discussion and civil disagreement (though I don’t think we disagree that there is not, for example, a ‘rape culture’ in our society). I will leave you the last word and this one suggestion, don’t take this Marcotte as some major feminist thinker. She appears to be a writer for Slate. I had to read Catherine Mackinnon for school. She’s a much larger figure in feminist thought. And in her work she certainly referenced thinkers that disagreed with feminists on gender and family relations. In fact in her Toward a Feminist Theory of the State for example she borrows from Marx to critique feminist theory (and also then critiques some of Marx from a feminist standpoint). Mind you I found the book to be pretty bad, but it certainly had those elements in it. You might want to check it out.

                    24. You know, I bet most in this subthread have read Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin, an even larger* feminist thinker.

                      That’s a fat joke.

            2. I know “rape culture” is bullshit because I only know one rape joke* compared to 100s about dead babies, the Holocaust, etc. and there sure as shit isn’t a “Holocaust culture.”

              * According to a recent study 9 in 10 participants enjoy gang rape.

              1. Mind you, I am not saying there is a rape culture in our society. I am only saying that whether there is or is not one seems to me to be answerable as much as whether there is a culture of dependency or anti-capitalist mentality.

                In fact, it seems you agree it can be measured and refuted, because in your opinion it has been. And I actually like your argument: if there were a rape culture in the area of jokes we would expect to find many more jokes making light of rape than we do.

                1. Here’s the bottom line, Bo:

                  I don’t know if it is because you are a lawyer, but there is a huge difference between statements and concepts which can be falsified, and those which cannot through a variety of tests. Libertarianism makes several foundational claims which are testable and makes clear which of its statements are not testable (i.e., which are “moral” statements); this doesn’t mean it is correct but it does mean that it’s open to inquiry and debate.

                  In a closed system, terms and concepts are made to avoid their falsifiability: statements are vague, terminology is not concrete or meaningful. Every feminist term or concept you’ve referenced has been changed in some way as the debate turns against them; in contrast the definition of, say, liberty or the money supply has remained consistent in libertarianism. In a closed system, there’s your ideology and everyone else’s: there is very little room to integrate others’ thoughts on the subject that the system claims expertise in, even if it does not contradict your own thought. All major intellectual development is “in house”.

                  That is the case for feminism and is not for libertarianism (see for example fusionism).

        2. Modern feminism really does come from a place of utter loathing and infantilization of any women not completely immersed in the feminist bubble.

          This.

    3. WTF.

      And I highly doubt that the world has been cleansed of guys who try to talk their way out of wearing a condom. Yes, yes, young women “should” be strong and empowered and never, ever worry about impressing the guy they’re eager to sleep with, but that “should” appears to be doing very little to prevent unintended pregnancy.

      How about HPV induced cervical cancer ya dumbass? HIV, HPV, hep b and c, and herpes I and II don’t fucking go away. Put your big girl britches on and wear a fucking condom every time like a responsible adult, or have intimate time with your vibrator.

      1. Like guys are the only ones who try to talk their way out of using condoms.

    4. So being a “slut” who doesn’t even pay for her own stuff is, what, better?

      1. Isn’t that the difference between “slut” and “whore?”

    5. Also,

      young women are reluctant to go on the pill or have condoms on hand while single, lest parents see them as failures or partners see them as “sluts.”

      Citation needed. HTH!

      1. WTF?

        Having one condom in your purse doesn’t make you a slut.

        Having 30 in your purse at all times makes you a slut.

        1. also buying up the remaining supply of Today Sponges.

    6. My sister was on the pill in the freakin’ 1970s. The culture that she is bitching about has been dead for a long time outside of cloistered communities.

      1. I’m an old fart and my girlfriends from back in the day did the same — because they weren’t utter morons. Even back then, having lots of unprotected sex without contraceptives was seen as something that morons do. Morons have always existed of course, but to pretend that the culture bows to their wishes is completely wrong — or I hope it is, anyways. It was when I was making the rounds.

      2. Maybe I’m missing something here, but merely taking the pill doesn’t make a sign hover over your head saying so. So the fact that you’re on the pill only has to come up (outside the doctor’s office) when you’re (a) discussing it with your long-term intimate partner or (b) discussing it with a partner prior to (or perhaps after, unfortunately) engaging in casual sex with them. In which case, if they think you’re a slut it’s because you’re having casual sex with them, not because you’re on the pill.

        I mean, maybe if you’re in a relationship and haven’t had sex yet, and your partner says “Hey, you should go on the pill and we can have sex” and you say “Oh, I’m already on it”, then they might think you’re a slut…?

        1. The slut thing is complete B.S. anyway. Any girl who thinks the pill is slutty can rationalize it by claiming she takes it to help her skin.

          1. Also used to treat poly-cystic ovary syndrome and regulate irregular periods.

        2. Is being a slut a bad thing, especially in that situation?

          1. It’s just intelligent. If you or your SO are having sex with multiple partners, make sure to get checked for STDs and to be safe. If you’re having sex, get on the pill.

          2. No, it isn’t. Being a virgin who never shares the bounty of your loins is offensive, unsocial behavior in the extreme.

            1. Virgins are an affront to Zod. That’s why we throw them into volcanoes.

              1. Amen. PBUZ.

    7. Wait a minute… she isn’t projecting again, is she?

    8. I thought the new thinking was that men want to enslave the newly sexually free woman with babies.

      1. So, does this mean I can get rid of the straps and cage in my basement?

        Won’t my harem get away.

        The new strategy failed for Warty Castro up in Cleveland, too.

    9. I do know lots of women that I respect and who seem reasonably competent that have slept with men without condoms and/or missed a pill. Missing an every day thing happens to the best, and the heat of those moments is oh so hot.

      What I don’t see is how there is any connection to more condoms and pills being available (and making me pay for that is, of course, something else I don’t see). There will still be heat of the moments and occasional lapses.

      1. Thus the purpose of the Plan B contraceptive.

        But only sluts use that.

  18. Enough with the depressing stuff. I am going to make fried green tomatoes with crawfish remoulade for supper. I am still getting tons of tomatoes out of my garden. Yum.

    1. Jealous.

      1. How did you get that bizarre emoticon after you handle?

        1. Weirdly enough you can put it in your name but you can’t put it in the text.

          1. On my Mac it shows up as a box, an underscore, then two more boxes.

    2. That does sound good.

    3. I made a pot of lo mein noodles to go with the plate of home made spring rolls a coworker gave me earlier today. Added brown gravy mix powder to the recipe to thicken the sauce. Still stewing but quite yummy already.

  19. Solid advice:

    Karl Welzein ?@DadBoner 1h

    Don’t know why anybody ever gets “bored.” Buy a styro cooler, cold ones and ice. Then, go ANYWHERE and drink it. You ain’t bored no more.

    1. “DadBoner” Who chooses that as their twitter handle?

      1. Mike Burns

  20. Why did reason make its preview and submit buttons green?

    And has anyone else noticed that there’s an off-by-one error between the 24/7 stories in the side bar and the 24/7 page?

    1. Why did reason make its preview and submit buttons green?

      I’ve been asking this for a few days now, and can’t get a straight goddamn answer. I’m thinking of cancelling my (non-existent) subscription.

      This never would have happened when Postrel was in charge.

      1. What’s terrible is that, when you reply to a post, the order is 1) Submit 2) Preview, but at the end of the thread the buttons are in the opposite order. UI DESIGN, PEOPLE! At least get the basics down.

  21. This is the slowest dang afternoon links in a while.

    Did the presidents circle jerk with the “media” put everybody to sleep?

    1. It’s the NSA. Or a Friday. Or both.

  22. Has anyone here ever tried concrete coffee? Someone on my facebook timeline posted about it and so I looked it up, and it sounds disgusting.

    Is it good? Is it worth trying? What’s the best way to make it? And what are the supposed benefits of it?

    1. WTF is concrete coffee?

      1. It has something to do with mixing unsalted butter and coffee. It sounds related to the paleo thing. I was hoping someone here would know something about it.

        1. Concrete is porous, so it can be used to filter the grounds. The process is extremely slow, and of course the concrete filter is cumbersome, but it is worth the effort.

        2. Do you mean Upgraded Coffee, that coconut oil/butter/coffee thing Dave Asprey came up with?

          It’s quite tasty, though better with maple syrup added.

          Still not better than having it with Carollans.

          1. Is that Bulletproof coffee or am I thinking of something else?

            1. That’s what I’m thinking of! Yikes that was a bad mistake.

  23. This is “old” news, but Newsweek continues its comical demise, being sold to IBT.

    Its previous owner was IAC, better-known as the owner of Ask (Jeeves), Match, Chemistry, and OKCupid (I think it’s funny what a huge chunk of the online dating industry they own).

  24. So is it only women’s anal cavities they check or men’s as well?

  25. This thread is boring and it makes me want to cry.

    1. Have you tried reading it on your Nexus 7? It might be fun if you filtered it through gadget enhanced self-superiority.

      1. Hm, good point. I’ll do that while I lie down and watch Adventure Time.

    2. it’s full of morons.

  26. Greatest Least worst Vines 2013

  27. Oh, this is amazing:

    Man Tries To Beat Bank At Its Own Game With Fine Print That Gives Him Unlimited Credit

    Guy takes a generic account contract a bank sent him in the mail, rewrites all the terms to give himself free money forever, and the bank accepted it. The kicker is that now that they don’t want to give him his infinite money, he’s taking them to court over the cancellation fee he wrote into it!

    1. That’s fricken hilarious, but it would have been better if the guy had gone all Lizbeth Salander instead of just racking up $1,363 in two years.

  28. Hmm, curious doings during Bret Baier’s Special Report today with Bing Pulse. You could click on a five-point scale ranging from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree” every five seconds during the panel segment.

    The Democrat, Republican, and Independent lines tracked almost on TOP of each other for the whole show. There were a couple of times, on one of the scandals, where there was a lot of divergence, but for the most part Democrats were just as skeptical as Republicans about Obama’s press conference.

  29. Missile defense in Europe can only benefit the contractors at the expense of the taxpayers. There will be no nuclear attack from Iran.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.