HealthCare.gov Fixes Won't Meet Deadline, Jeb Bush Reportedly Pondering 2016 Run, Californians Lose Insurance: P.M. Links

|

  • This image will be showing up in every GOP election ad next year, so get used to it.
    HealthCare.gov

    HealthCare.gov is most certainly probably not going to be working properly by the end of the month. The administration finally released the number of enrollees through the site and it's even less than expected: fewer than 27,000. The state-run exchanges are outperforming it.

  • Assuming Hillary Clinton runs for president in 2016, she certainly won't be touting Obamacare.
  • Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is also reportedly considering a presidential run in 2016. I guess it's technically not royal succession if we actually elect these people.
  • One million Californians are getting health insurance cancellation notices, thanks to Affordable Care Act coverage requirements.
  • The typhoon that struck the Philippines has been followed by the typical looting, and survivors are panicking over shortages of food and water.
  • Toronto Mayor Rob Ford is digging in and refusing city council members' requests to step down over his admitted crack use at a confrontational debate today. He also said he has bought illegal drugs during the past two years but is not an addict.

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

Follow Reason and Reason 24/7 on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.  You can also get the top stories mailed to you—sign up here. Have a news tip? Send it to us!

NEXT: Syrian Troops Capture Damascus Suburb

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. YES! Another Bush in the Whitehouse would make so many heads explode.

    1. And….FIRST! Keep him on his toes, Pantsy.

    2. I agree Hillary would have that effect.

    3. It’s too bad he wasn’t President instead of his bro. Even my leftist mom reluctantly admitted he was a competent governor.

      1. They’d be singing a different tune if he was president.

    4. Why keep up the pretense.

      Bush/Clinton in 2016!

      1. George P. Bush/Chelsea Clinton in 2036!

  2. The administration finally released the number of enrollees through the site and it’s even less than expected: fewer than 27,000.

    But still, as far as unicorns go, that’s a healthy size herd.

    1. At this point, they should just sell advertising on the home page and monetize all those millions of visitors with clicks to amazon daily deals…it’s the only economic sense this thing makes.

    2. You obviously haven’t read the newest short in Charlie Stross’s Laundry universe.

      1. Must. read. now.

  3. Smithsonian museum artifacts can now be 3D printed at home

    1. Dillinger’s penis?

    2. Dibs on Spacelab!

  4. Remember the retired NFL player who’s house was broken into and destroyed by a bunch of partying teenagers? There’s more to the story. A lot more:
    http://www.grantland.com/story…..oway-house

    A long but good read.

    1. Damn autocorrect! S/B whose

    2. Synopsis based on a quick skimming: Local construction workers claim that the property was already in severe disrepair before the party.

      Also, FTFA: During our running conversation, Holloway referenced Ayn Rand on multiple occasions, particularly in reference to his long-term business plans. He claimed that Steve Jobs and other “Wall Street and tech types” had been interested in turning Stephentown into a sort of self-selecting outpost of the Hamptons, modeled after Atlas Shrugged

      Hmmm…

      1. For some semblance of clarity, I asked Holloway what he thought the appropriate punishment would have been for a kid who had come to the party for an hour without the knowledge that it was illegal. Holloway told me what his father would have done to him: “He would have beat me, took me to the house so the owner could beat me, then he would make me scrub the house with a toothbrush, raise the money to cover all the damage, and then turn me in to the police and say, ‘Here, arrest him.'”

        Dude’s a motherfuckin’ freak of nature.

    3. An interesting tidbit explaining where truth lies, imo…

      “but by posting the images without any explanation, he allowed reporters, producers, and editors to assume that all the damage shown had been done by partygoers.”

      Because as reporters, producers and editors the job is never to question what you are being told/sold?

      1. “Because as reporters, producers and editors the job is never to question what you are being told/sold?”

        Naah. Those are “skeptics”

        1. Naah. Those are “skeptics”

          AKA “deniers”

    4. People broke into his property. They get what they deserve. End of story.

  5. One million Californians are getting health insurance cancellation notices, thanks to Affordable Care Act coverage requirements.

    You get what you vote for California.

    1. Still checking my mail everyday (I usually don’t).

  6. “He also said he has bought illegal drugs during the past two years but is not an addict.

    Crack isn’t addictive – I should know, I’ve been using it for years!

    1. How is this not a confession?
      How is it not actionable?

      1. The statement was too general to charge him. What kind of drugs? When? Where did he commit these crimes?

      2. A confession is not the same as getting caught with the materials in your possession which is the actual crime. Note all of the celebrities who do post rehab interviews are perfectly safe to talk to the press about their drug use.

    2. I have no problem with Bob Ford using illegal drugs.

      I do have a problem with kids being busted in front of Toronto City Hall and going to jail for using the same drugs.

      1. yeah but they’re addicts!

        1. And, if it saves *just one child* from a life of politics ….

      2. Exactly. I don’t get upset when a politician breaks the law…if and only if he or she has been a tireless advocate for legalizing the activity in question, and for leniency for anyone else accused of it. Has Rob Ford done this? I assume not, so fuck him.

  7. The doors will have to be widened: N.J. Gov. Chris Christie sizes up the White House

    1. I thought that was taken care of during Taftification?

  8. One million Californians are getting health insurance cancellation notices, thanks to Affordable Care Act coverage requirements.

    I think you mean thanks to greedy insurers and GOP obstinance.

  9. “Did those who succumbed to the liberal siren song of bringing insurance to the poor think that what the government was doing was an attempt to capitalize on anonymous sex and alcoholism? And what does it say about us as a nation that this is the level of discourse about health in our country and that supporters of the president are condoning social pathologies in order to trick young Americans into ObamaCare?”

    http://www.commentarymagazine……insurance/

    1. Oh, look, someone haz a moral panic.

      1. Ah, hello there, Tonio!

    2. Yeah, sex is a social pathology. Whatever. Talk about the most dull and pointless argument against a law that is very easy to tear apart logically.

      1. He referred to “anonymous sex and alcoholism” – is that really the same as sex?

        1. The same as ‘enjoyable sex’.

          1. From the SoCon rag Huffington Post:

            “”Studies have found that married people have more sex than single people, and they also have more varied sex,” says sexual health expert and best-selling author Dr. Laura Berman, who hosts “In The Bedroom with Dr. Laura Berman” on OWN. “Oral sex is also more common among married people.””

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..22644.html

            1. I’ve been married 21 years, most of my oral sex now involves telling each other to fuck off.

              1. I’ve been married for 42 years and I got a blowjob this morning while giving Mrs. Hobbit an oral orgasm.

                YMMV, obviously.

                … Very Happily Married Hobbit

                1. Does hobbit sex fall under ordinary cosplay or furry?

  10. Assuming Hillary Clinton runs for president in 2016, she certainly won’t be touting Obamacare.

    So will she be Bush’s 5th term or Clinton’s 3rd?

    1. Bob Dole’s 1st.

    2. Hillary = Bush’s 5th term.

      Elizabeth Warren = Obama’s 3rd term, which will be weird, because we’ll go straight from Bush’s 4th term to Obama’s 3rd.

    3. Nixon’s 13th or LBJ’s 14th.

      1. I FDRs ##?

  11. Remember how I said Progs were anything but socially liberal and the various Prog sock puppets swore that wasn’t true? Well turns out the socialist government of France is looking to ban prostitution because it is “sexist”.

    http://www.samizdata.net/2013/…..-bastards/

    1. Same bans, different reasons.

    2. Will they provide job training programs or just place the comely ones as bureaucrats’ mistresses?

    3. 100% in agreement with you John. Progs and liberals are different people.

      Liberals distrust power and dont want it messing with social issues and shit.

      Progs always favor MORE POWER.

      1. You know who else favored MORE POWER?

        1. Tim Allen?

        2. Little Einsteins?

        3. Electric utilities?

          1. Our customers crave it; we simply provide it.

        4. Tim “the Tool Man” Taylor?

        5. Progs?

        6. Jeremy Clarkson?

          1. +1 Hammond, you idiot

        7. Prof. Emmett Brown?

          (At least 1.4 gigawatts.)

          1. -.19 gigawatts

            1. Emmettpedant.

          2. It was 1.21 gigawatts.

          3. that’s one point twenty one Jiggawatts

        8. Max Power?

        9. You know who else favored MORE POWER?

          Captain Kirk?

          Not Scotty though…she canna take any more…!

        10. Dilithum Crystals?

    4. As opposed to what, our liberalized prostitution laws?

      If you read SoCon diatribes against ‘sex workers’ they play the ‘sexist’ card to the hilt as well.

      1. So they are both equally illiberal. Thanks for agreeing with me.

        1. If you recall John I conceded that the effect was often similar, just that the motivations were different.

          1. And that is a distinction without difference.

            1. One group will kill you in the name of God and the other will goad you in the name of Kyle.

      2. Bootleggers and baptists, Bo. See above.

  12. “The typhoon that struck the Philippines has been followed by the typical looting, and survivors are panicking over shortages of food and water.”

    And the typical climate change scapegoating.

  13. It’s bitterly cold across much of the US today as the Border Patrol once again completely failed to prevent frigid Canadian air from coming south, endangering American lives and raising our heating bills. When will President Obama and Congress reach across the aisle to pass common sense legislation so we can finally do something about this scourge?

    1. It’s warm on my side of the border.

    2. I’ve had high 70’s and sunny all week. I’m sure I don’t know what you are talking about.

      1. I think we hit 60 for the high today. Pretty soon, the Canadians will be the only people swimming in the Gulf at the root of America’s wang.

        1. It’s almost getting to Canadian winter bird season again. Palm Desert is extra polite this time of year.

      2. It was 65 in Great Falls, MT yesterday.

        AGW.

        1. Do you live near the Hutterite Colonies?

          1. I hunt on them all the time. There are three or four within 30 miles. They are actually very friendly people, from what I’ve seen.

            1. I read that as ‘I hunt them all the time’.

              Is there a daily limit on how many you can bag?

              1. You gotta buy a tag, but it’s over the counter.

              2. That’s how I read it too…

    3. 91 here in sunny SoCal today!

      1. Whoa! I just pulled up the map on the big screen in my war room. I didn’t realize it was that hot inland.
        http://www.wunderground.com/cg…..uery=93030

        1. It’s always hot wherever my wife is.

          1. It’s always hot wherever my wife is.

            Don’t we all know!

          2. This could have more than 1 meaning…

    4. It’s almost 70 in Denver today, rode my motor-sickle to work for the second time this week.

      1. It’s 34 in Boston. As usual I’ll ride my motorcycle home.

        1. For some reason, I am picturing the moped scene from Dumb & Dumber in my head right now.

  14. DO YOU buy costly free-range eggs because the caged variety seems cruel? A new study shows the cooped up hens are happier than those that roam freely.

    1. Some free range eggs are delicious and worth the money. Some.

      Specifically, the ones with really dark yolks.

      1. Isn’t that a diet thing, not a walking around thing?

        1. Yes. Free range usually, but not always, have better feed. I think.

          1. Always. Chickens are supposed to eat bugs, not corn.

            Note: I am in no way endorsing free-range chickens. Chickens are horrible creatures, and being kept in tiny cages and slaughtered en masse is too good for them.

            1. Uh, to meet the gubmint definition of “free range” they need access to the outdoors, but doesn’t say how much or of what quality. It usually means a small area a fraction of the size of the indoor area and they are eating…wait for it… the same food as caged birds.

              1. You could also look for “pastured” eggs. Or just buy them from the farm.

            2. Yeah, that is the key. That’s why “farm yard” eggs are special. They really taste way better and more interesting if they eat a lot of bugs. Annoyingly, a lot of the fancy eggs in teh grocery store advertise “all vegetarian diet” as if that is a good thing.

              1. Creme Br?l?e made with farmyard eggs is on of the best things to have ever come out of my kitchen.

          2. “free range” isn’t as “free range” as you’d think and their feed doesn’t really change in practice. But yes, in a perfect world they are out foraging for bugs. Some farms actually do this (Polyface for one) not only for the birds/eggs, but for pest control

            1. Well, yes, good point. I forgot about how “free range” usually means they live in a slightly larger cage and get to see the sun once in a while.

              1. But enough about how well you treat your “houseguests,” Warty.

            2. You get what you pay for.

              For me, the term “Free Range” is about as informative as “Organic” or “Natural”.

              1. Low fat?
                USDA approved?
                Jay Carney says?

    2. Bart Simpsons: I think I read somewhere that cows like being killed.

      1. “When I grow up, I’m going to Bovine University!”

        1. What a load of tripe!

    3. Headline FTFA: Some free-range chicken farms treat animals no better than caged ones. Yep, caveat emptor.

      Why do you people always mock any attempt to treat animals less cruelly?

      1. Chickens are much happier when they are packed tightly together, shitting all over one another Tonio.

      2. Why do you people always mock any attempt to treat animals less cruelly?

        Caveat: I actually think that “small farm” like husbandry is tons better and makes for better food products.

        Some of these animal moralists are a caricature of themselves, and they tend to be statists about treating animals better. Just like you rub socons’ noses in it, even when they’re not being statists.

    4. A spokesman for Compassion in World Farming said consumers should still opt for free-range eggs.

      She added: “Only in free-range (or organic) farms can hens fully perform all their important natural behaviours, like stretching and flapping their wings, perching up high, foraging, scratching, dust-bathing and laying their eggs in a comfortable nest.”

      Getting eaten by, coyotes, foxes, cats, racoons…

      1. So, all attempts to reduce suffering are pointless. Got it.

        Sure, I agree that “natural” is a very slippery slope, but she defined a specific set of behaviors which caged hens cannot perform, or cannot perform easily. You got a reply to that, or just more snark because she used a word less precisely than you’d like?

        1. Natural isn’t a slippery slope. Humans are animals as well and everything we do is part of nature. It’s all natural.

        2. They do those things in the wild because they must to survive. Who knows if it really makes them “happy”? Perhaps they are happier by taking away the possibility of being predated.

          She is assigning human attributes to a bird with a brain the size of a pea, that we raise and kill for nutritional value. How the hell does she know what makes a chicken happy?

  15. Not that I’d know, but Uncle Fester, a pseudonymous writer of home-chemistry books once advised storing any meth that you happen to make in relatively pure alcohol (vodka, for example) as it is soluble to high relative masses.

    According to Cambridge News, Romano Dias from Cambridgeshire, England thought he was consuming a health beverage, when in fact the bottle contained $58,000 worth of pure crystal meth.

    1. Didn’t RTA. Did $58K of meth kill him?

      1. One gulp of $58k worth of meth killed him.

    2. Holy shit that would kill you, right? I mean, death would probably be preferable to the alternative, anyway. I imagine something like the ultra-rapid aging of the villain in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

      1. Store it that way, don’t ingest it. I mean, an ounce of vodka with 1:1 mass ratio of alcohol to meth is probably fatal.

        1. Yeah, I get that it is a way of storing it. But drinking even a tiny bit would be suicidal. Now, with the right concentration, I coupd see people trying that old trick of injecting oranges with vodka to smuggle alcohol into high school dances etc.

          1. You can’t know how much $58K of meth would actually be the way the police calculate such things. It was obviously enough to kill him but they almost certainly including a ton of mark-up in the $58K number.

            1. True. A weight would have been more informative.

              1. Of course the police lie about that too. Feds charge using the standard “possession of X amount of substance containing a detectable amount of meth”.

              2. Damned squirrels ate my first post. Anyway, the solubility of meth in EtOH is about 1 g per 3 ml, 2 ml in water. Ld 50 in monkeys is 15 to 20 mg per kg. So about 1200 to 1500 mg for Joe Average. About 3.5 to 4.5 mL of saturated solution, or about a 10th of a shot. Yikes. Hope it was painless.

            2. But-but-but what about my collection of Beanie Babies worth $60,000?

      2. Hopefully, the heart attack was quick. I can’t imagine a meth overdose being pleasant.

  16. HealthCare.gov is most certainly probably not going to be working properly by the end of the month.

    But we’re told soon Angelfire will no longer be hosting the site.

    1. You know who else didn’t support blink tags?

      1. I think these developers are still trying to get the horizontally scrolling marquee to work properly.

  17. http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..obamacare/

    Turns out you can let people keep their insurance, but only if you do away with the mandates altogether and effectively repeal Obamacare.

    1. Wouldn’t that be a shame!

  18. Hmm, another TOTALLY consensual relationship between a DOC officer and a prisoner.

    1. Procedures were followed; nothing else happened.

      1. I wonder what the first step in the procedure is for prison sex?

        1. Something involving handcuffs, I’m sure.

        2. A cell mate named ‘Big Lamar’?

  19. Assuming Hillary Clinton runs for president in 2016, she certainly won’t be touting Obamacare.

    Hillarycare wouldn’t have had any website problems.

  20. SadBeard: If you like your insurance plan, fuck you

    Insurance cancellation sob stories have been full of picayune details about new coverage mandates for services the policyholder doesn’t want: gender reassignment surgery, for example, or maternity care for women in their 50s. But no insurer worries about being forced to offer you services that you won’t want to use. New regulations will only lead to policy cancellation if they make the policy unprofitable to offer. And in the majority of cases, that’ll mean the policy is being canceled because it never made financial sense for the insurer to actually pay up in the case of major illness.

    Clearing the landscape of this kind of mirage insurance and making sure that everyone has proper coverage?which, yes, may be more expensive?is a feature of the Affordable Care Act, not a bug. The White House has every reason to hold its head in shame over the shambolic state of healthcare.gov, but the wave of cancellation letters is part of Obamacare doing what it was supposed to do. There’s little to regret about these plans vanishing from the earth.

    1. but the wave of cancellation letters is part of Obamacare doing what it was supposed to do.

      Actually, Sadbeard is being incredibly honest.

      1. Yes and no.

        He’s being honest about the fact that the ACA was always intended to force as many people as possible to buy more expensive insurance plans.

        He’s being dishonest in that he, like many of the Juiceboxers, is still pretending that discontinued policies were somehow substandard — “mirage insurance” — in a meaningful way.

        If he were being completely honest, he’d admit that:

        (1) There was nothing wrong with the discontinued plans other than the fact that they didn’t meet the ACA’s minimum requirements; and,

        (2) The ACA imposes those requirements not to improve coverage but to ensure that more people are overpaying for insurance they don’t need and won’t claim against.

    2. Clearing the landscape of this kind of mirage insurance and making sure that everyone has proper coverage

      Even sad beard is not that fucking retarded. Even Ezra Klein understands that the existing policies were insurance and that they are only being changed to force people to fund the expansion of coverage. If Klein knows that, sad beard does extra chromosome or not. What a mendacious little bastard that weirdo is.

      1. Ezra’s on the blame Bill Clinton bandwagon. Not sure if that one is going to gain traction, but there have been a couple of pieces to that effect.

        1. He can see which way the wind is blowing.

    3. that everyone has proper coverage

      I had proper coverage as defined by me. Now, my options are improper for me. He can’t possibly think I don’t know what’s best for me, can he?

      1. Yes, yes he can!

    4. But no insurer worries about being forced to offer you services that you won’t want to use. New regulations will only lead to policy cancellation if they make the policy unprofitable to offer.

      Well, they should worry, as offering you nothing but plans that are loaded with benefits that you don’t want but have to pay for anyway is a good way to not sell many policies.

    5. “Insurance cancellation sob stories ”

      Imagine if a libertarian used this phrasing to describe somebody else’s misfortune. They would totally get away with it, right?

      1. Sad beard is a nasty little fuck. He is totally the kid who got his head stuck in the toilet in gym class and now hates humanity as a result.

  21. I was a full-blown cokehead‘: Mike Tyson reveals he was high during fights, used fake penis to fool testers

  22. I bought a gross of these for Christmas/Hanukkah/Festivus/Solstice/Holiday presents for you lot.

    Male chastity devices — yes, lockable sheaths that restrict you from touching yourself — are apparently all the rage these days.

    Get your color scheme order in now. First come, first serve.

    1. My looks and personality work just fine, thank you.

      1. +1 Self Awareness!

  23. The typhoon that struck the Philippines has been followed by the typical looting, and survivors are panicking over shortages of food and water.

    Where’s that stuck on stupid guy when you need him?

    1. I feel deeply for the victims of the Typhoon, but please can we stop the interviews? There is no worse accent on the planet than a Filipino trying to speak english.

      1. It’s worse than Boston or Brooklyn? Worse than yinzers?

        1. I guarantee Boston or Brooklyn is closer to English than whatever garbled moonspeak is your native tongue, which I’m guessing is Tagalog.

          *bilabial trill*

        2. Worse than lawn guy lund?

          1. Say what you want, but Fran Drescher has seen some shit. She’s an O.G. hard muthafucka.

  24. No good will come of this:
    “Legislators probe taxpayer cost of aiding fast-food workers”
    Read that carefully; it’s not what it’ll cost the taxpayers to increase the wages.
    “California Assembly and Senate Labor Committees will hold a joint post-lunch hearing Wednesday to dig in to the societal cost of low-wage, fast food jobs.”
    Imagine how un-biased THAT will be!
    http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05el…..d-workers/

    1. Indeed, it would cost taxpayers much less if these jobs didn’t exist in the first place.

    2. Legislators probe taxpayer

      ’nuff said!

    3. Are they going to probe the societal cost of paying people to not work at all?

  25. SoCon Argues for Legalizing Gambling in NY

    -First, consider the health of families. The infestation of frequent, problem, and pathological gambling into a community is flatly inconsistent with a concern for family. So much of the gambling ethic and its personal and social consequences?including debt servitude, addiction, alcohol abuse, depression, mendacity, crime, and time stolen from work and home?are the open enemies of strong families and healthy family life.

    Second, consider “family” as a metaphor?as the part of the New York Idea that reminds us of how we as citizens should aim to treat one another and how the state’s governing group should aim to treat the governed. Let’s start with the latter.

    Is it part of the New York Idea for the governing to play a substantial number of the governed for suckers? To permit and encourage professional gambling organizations to fleece them, to take their money and what’s left of their hope in order that the state may get some of the revenue? To prey upon human weakness, for money? Is that who we are in New York? Let’s hope not. To do this thing would rupture the social contract between New York’s leaders and its citizens and mock of the very idea of “family.”

    http://www.americanvalues.org/…..romise.pdf

    1. Whoops, SoCon Argues Against Legalized Gambling in NY

      1. Man, I thought Bill Bennett had finally just said “fuck it, gambling is okay.”

        1. He has, multiple times.

          1. Oh, c’mon, I picked the first SoCon I could think of known to gamble and ran with it. I don’t give shit about their religion as long as they practice it on themselves only.

      2. You got it right the first time.

        You just didnt quote the correct SoCon.

        1. Can you point me to a public statement by a SoCon or SoCon organization in favor of legalized gambling?

      3. I assumed it was a typo, Bo. 😛

    2. That’s David Blankenhorn, the ex-SoCon who now supports SSM.

      1. He led the charge against SSM and then wrote an essay in which he said he recanted none of his arguments, but that the campaign against SSM was harming the dignity of unions that were happening. He still leads a prominent SoCon organization that is fighting several on several fronts in the culture war.

        1. Offhand, can you think of any other socons who support SSM?

          1. Why is SSM the defining issue? I think someone can deviate on an issue or two and still be a SoCon (or a social liberal or whatever). What if I said that being in favor of interracial marriage or women’s right to vote meant one wasn’t a SoCon?

            1. Then you’d be an idiot.

              1. But I know you don’t believe those idiotic things. Nice attempt at defining the problem away, though.

            2. Take a look at the history of women’s suffrage, and you’ll find a little outfit called the Women’s Christian Temperance Union. In modern terms they were SoCons.

              “The National Woman’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) was founded in Cleveland, Ohio in November of 1874. It grew out of the “Woman’s Crusade” of the winter of 1873-1874. Initial groups in Fredonia, New York and Hillsboro and Washington Court House, Ohio, after listening to a lecture by Dr. Dio Lewis, were moved to a non-violent protest against the dangers of alcohol. Normally quiet housewives dropped to their knees in pray-ins in local saloons and demanded that the sale of liquor be stopped….

              “[WCTU head] Frances…Willard’s personal motto was “do everything.” The WCTU adopted this as a policy which came to mean that all reform was inter-connected and that social problems could not be separated. The use of alcohol and other drugs was a symptom of the larger problems in society. By 1894, under “home protection” the WCTU was endorsing women’s suffrage. By 1896, 25 of the 39 departments of the WCTU were dealing with non-temperance issues. However, temperance, especially in terms of alcohol., tobacco, and other drugs, was the force that bound the WCTU’s social reforms together. To promote its causes, the WCTU was among the first organizations to keep a professional lobbyist in Washington, D. C.”

      2. Yeah, we know you have a sad over this, Eddie.

        1. Why do birds suddenly appear
          Every time you are near?
          Just like me, they all watched
          Alfred Hitchcock’s The Birds.

    3. SO-KHAAAAANS!!

  26. Scientists find evidence of life in Australia–3.48 billion years ago

    Deep in a remote, hot patch of northwestern Australia lies one of the earliest detectable signs of life on the planet, tracing back nearly 3.5 billion years, scientists say.
    At that time, the Earth — relatively speaking — wasn’t into its adulthood yet. Scientists estimate the planet formed roughly 4.5 billion years ago; minerals known as zircons, indicating water, and continents existed within 100 million and 200 million years after that on what was still a scalding planet.
    The existence of water suggests that life was possible. But what did it look like, and when did it start?
    The discovery from Western Australia’s Dresser Formation, published in the Astrobiology journal, may help answer those questions.
    It centers on something called microbially induced sedimentary structures, commonly shortened to the acronym MISS. It’s a mouthful to many, but some scientists believe this phenomenon could be the key to finding the first demonstrable evidence of life.
    A MISS forms via a process involving microorganisms (found in what’s called microbial mats) with rocks (or sediment), something that can only happens under certain conditions.

    1. I thought the earth was only 1000 days old

      1. It hasn’t been nearly that long since last Tuesday?

      2. 1758 days. Since He took His office.

    2. I don’t know if you can call any of that stuff in Australia “life”. At least, not life as we know it.

  27. Okay, I got the snarky teenage eyeroll thing going since the top story at CNN.com is about the decreased expectations for Obamacare signup after the month of October. I’m like, “Dude, if you think low enrollment and some website glitches are a problem, just wait until the more entrenched, perverse consequences start popping up.”

  28. Will Republican defections lead to ratification of the UN disability treaty, over the objections of homeschoolers and others concerned with US sovereignty?

    “One Senate Republican aide close to opponents of the treaty tells National Review Online…”We have a lot of post-shutdown fatigue on the Republican side….This is not the easiest issue to be out in front on being opposed to.”

    “He adds that some Republicans are tired of being perceived as contrarian and obstructionist.”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/…..y-woodruff

    Homeschool Legal Defense Association explains its problems with the treaty. Eg, “Under [Section 7.2] the government?and not the parent?would have the ultimate authority to determine if a child with special needs will be homeschooled, attend a private school, or be required to accept the program offered by the public school.”

    http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/2012/201205250.asp

    1. “He adds that some Republicans are tired of being perceived as contrarian and obstructionist.”

      Maybe they should propose constructive things… Like holding a contest to see how many pages of Federal Register they can repeal.

      1. This is how bad laws get passed – “I hate being *against* stuff all the time, it’s time for me to be *for* something – let’s see – oh, disabled kids, just the ticket!”

      2. some Republicans are tired of being perceived as contrarian and obstructionist

        “Contrarian and obstructionist” is only a bad thing if what you are opposing is a good thing. I suggest that they try being proud of being contrarian and obstructionist at this late stage in the construction of the Total State.

      3. some Republicans are tired

        They should leave.

    2. Eduard, interesting, I did not know about this. Thank you for ‘flagging’ it.

  29. Ian McKellen’s ‘Waiting for Godot’ costume and make-up was so effective, people outside the theater mistook him for a beggar and gave him money

    Would you give this “beggar” money?

    A passerby in Melbourne, Australia, certainly did, offering an Aussie dollar to the bedraggled man crouching by the stage door of the Comedy Theatre in 2010. Presumably unbeknownst to the generous stranger, however, the “tramp” was in fact a costumed Sir Ian McKellen, the internationally acclaimed British actor who has been nominated for just about every acting award worth winning.

    McKellen was in Melbourne rehearsing Samuel Beckett’s classic “Waiting For Godot.”

    So astonished was the actor by the incident, he attempted to replicate it the next day. McKellen, dressed as his “Waiting for Godot” character, Estragon, quickly earned another $2, The Herald Sun reported.

    Gandalf has hit rock bottom.

    1. In Australia the passersby force money on the bums? It really is Bizarro World down there.

      1. I think they’re called something else down there…hoboes, maybe. Bums are something else. Heh.

    2. “Have you seen what I can do with my staff?! $20”

      1. You shall not pass:
        http://www.tmz.com/2013/11/06/…..r-gandalf/

  30. So what’s the official libertarian consensus on what one should do in the classic hypothetical where you’re walking down the street and find a pile of money on the sidewalk? Because last night, it wasn’t a hypothetical for me–I found $500 just sitting on the ground outside a parking garage at a nearby mall.

    I ended up turning it into security (#humblebrag)–my initial thought was that the security guard would probably just pocket it himself, but it actually turned out that the parking garage and the mall were separate properties, so he had to contact security at the garage and we turned it over to them (so either he’s on the level or was able to improvise a pretty clever con with no forethought).

    If security hadn’t been around–or if I had more reason to think the guard was crooked–how far is one obligated to go to find the true owner? Is simply handing it over to a person who nominally has some authority, like the security guard, and leaving it up to them to decide whether to do the right thing sufficient, or need one go further than absolving oneself of responsibility? And if the true owner really can’t be found, what then? I’d be fascinated to hear some thoughts from the rest of the commentariat.

    1. Why would there be a political-philosophy-based consensus on a moral problem?

      Seems like the kind thing to do is try to see if someone lost it, and, if one had exerted a reasonable effort and failed, keep it. Not sure how kindness is either libertarian or not-libertarian.

      Turning it over to a dude with a gun (or a Segway) is probably non-libertarian, though.

    2. Im not sure that libertarianism has anything to say about it. If there is no identification and no one nearby who it might belong to, then its fair game.

      However, I think you did the right thing, but Im not sure pocketing it is wrong, at least from libertarian ethos.

      Other morality codes may come into play here.

      1. Exactly. Libertarianism is a basic starting point for morality (or ethics). It’s not supposed to be your only ethical consideration. Just make sure that your other morality codes don’t conflict with it.

        1. I was trying to be glib with the “official libertarian consensus” bit and evidently failed, ha.

          I see your point about it being a starting point for morality or ethics, but if it’s going to be the basis for those considerations, than surely there must be something in the philosophy that influences those considerations, right? Robbing somebody is immoral, but in my view it is immoral because it is a violation of the non-aggression principle. That’s an obvious case, but I find it very thought-provoking to apply the same rubric to more gray areas. Sure, beating up a guy and taking his wallet is obviously wrong, but if he’s walking in front of me and drops it, is it wrong to pick it up? Stuff like that.

          Seems to me there’s little point in having a philosophy if you can’t apply its lessons to situations you actually encounter in your everyday life.

          1. How is dropping it on the ground any different than if someone leaves their wallet on the bar while they go to piss?

            In both cases, somebody is going to come back for the wallet at some point.

          2. Seems to me there’s little point in having a philosophy if you can’t apply its lessons to situations you actually encounter in your everyday life.

            Where did that come from? You will use the NAP many times on a regular day.

            1. I was referring to hamilton/robc’s assertion that libertarianism can not have “anything to say” about such a moral conundrum. As you rightly point out, libertarian principles inform such decisions on a near-constant basis.

              1. Well, the NAP gets a might fuzzy on salvage. That’s where other morality systems come into play. Which is what they meant. NAP is great, but it does not cover all situations. Just like algebra is great, but you wouldn’t be able to use it to define limits.

              2. I didn’t say (well, imply) libertarianism had nothing to say, just that it wouldn’t really occur to me to look for a libertarian consensus “angle” to lost money (which is probably because I didn’t get your glibness). The NAP is a nice start, but of course the directive to not be an asshole to people does not necessarily imply that one should try to be nice to them, either. That’s driven by morality more than by libertarian philosophy. I think.

                I’m gonna go back and count the negatives in that sentence and just make sure I’m ok. Back in a bit.

          3. “Seems to me there’s little point in having a philosophy if you can’t apply its lessons to situations you actually encounter in your everyday life.”

            Liberarianism isn’t a general philosophy, it’s a political philosophy. The limits are clearly defined. What you said is like being mad that studying biology won’t help you build a bridge. Both fields are (arguably) descendants of physics, but they are different applications of it.

            For the same reason, being a libertarian won’t tell you what religion you should follow or what drugs you should do. It has a relatively clear doctrine on things government should and should not do, but those are the limits.

      2. This. No force, your choice. Considering the person who lost it may have a great need for it, I think it’s a good thing to report it, but make sure there’s accountability.

        1. +1. Make sure that if they can’t find the owner after due diligence, you get to keep the money.

      3. There are all kinds of what ifs, for this, but in general, the money is not yours. Just because the owner didn’t deposit in the most secure location doesn’t give anyone else claim to it.

        If I leave my car unlocked, does that mean someone else has claim to it?

        If you take it, you are stealing and breaking the NAP.

        The most right thing to do was to leave it, expecting the owner would come back for it. However, knowing many people are low life pieces of shit, picking it up and leaving it with a nearby business was probably the best chance of getting the money back to its owner.

    3. So what’s the official libertarian consensus

      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

    4. I’d keep it.

      If you are so rich as to not secure $500 cash properly against accidently losing it, my gain.

      1. Check for the reality TV cameras first.

    5. or was able to improvise a pretty clever con with no forethought

      Unless he’d encountered or envisioned this type of situation previously and had a plan. Finding money is fairly common.

      /cynic.

    6. I personally wouldn’t trust handing a security guard $500. If I felt that was the only option, I’d just assume I’d spend it better than he would and keep it.

      Is there any obvious place to leave a note should anyone retrace their steps? One that says

      “If that pig says no one turned in your money, ask for his boss, because I handed it to him personally!”

      -Love, P.A.

    7. I don’t know the libertarian approach, but I think I can guess the conservative and liberal approaches

      Conservative: Donate it to charity and claim the charitable deduction on your tax return.

      Liberal: Spend it all on booze/drugs/Noam Chomsky books/bestiality porn then feel guilty afterwards and wish the government had taxed it. Blame Tea Party.

  31. Man catches girlfriend with another man, proceeds to beat the other man and set his genitals on fire

    A man lit another man’s genitals on fire after catching him having sex with his girlfriend Monday afternoon in the Back of the Yards neighborhood, according to police.

    “This will be a lesson to you, I lit your (genitals) on fire,” he told the 30-year-old while using a Bic lighter to burn the man while he was unconscious, according to a police report.

    The man ran to a laundromat at 44th Street and Ashland Avenue, where police found him applying Vaseline to the burned area in an attempt to sooth the pain, according to the police report.

    He was taken to Holy Cross Hospital and transferred to the burn unit at the University of Chicago Hospital, according to police.

    The man’s attacker found him having sex with his girlfriend at her apartment in the 4400 block of South Honore Street.

    He beat the 30-year-old unconscious and started to burn him while he was still knocked out, according to the police report. The lighter was on a “high” setting, according to the police report.

    No one is in custody.

    No one is in custody? A trial by combat, then?

    1. Probably a cop.

    2. Firing the genitals is too much.

    3. This guy only cancelled his girlfriend’s charge cards.

    4. Always wondered why guys always blame the guy and not the girlfriend?

      1. The’d rather continue the relationship, so they (sometimes even consciously) transfer the blame to the third party. Although I’ve noticed that women do this significantly more than men. This case is unusual, in that the guy normally only gets aggro if it’s going on in his own house.

  32. I need a sci-fi novel recommendation. Preferably something meaty 500+ pages to keep my busy for a 10 hour flight.

    Robert Charles Wilson’s Spin was the last one I read and I enjoyed that a lot. I think one of you guys brought up Singularity Sky not too long ago, but not sure 400 pages will last me as long as I’d like.

    1. Dont read the sequel to Spin.

      I will recommend Vinge’s A Deepness in the Sky.

      Won the Hugo and the Prometheus awards.

      1. Buy the sequel as well. Iron Sunrise.

        1. Crap. This is the sequel to Singularity Sky, not Deepness.

          Deepness is awesome, too.

      2. I can second Deepness…a recommendation I received right here a year ago.

      3. Dont read the sequel to Spin

        I won’t. They had an excerpt in the back of Spin for it’s sequel and it didn’t stick out to me as something I’d find worthwhile.

    2. Why type of sci-fi do you enjoy? Hard? Soft? Pulp? Military? Cyberpunk/80’s stuff?

      1. Hard, and from Googling Virne’s Deepness, it sounds like that will fit the billing.

        Thanks guys, you’re the best!… have I told you that? Probably not, it’s stupid…

        *shuffles away awkwardly*

        1. I recommend A Fire Upon the Deep too.

        2. Can’t go wrong with Vinge.

    3. I’d recommend Ian McDonald’s Out on Blue Six but it’s probably not long enough for you.

      Funnily, I read it because Cory Doctorow recommended it back when I would visit Boing-Boing – I don’t think he realized it shows just how blandly dystopian an all-powerful Progressive state would really be.

    4. Not really sci-fi, but the Monster Hunter International series by Larry Correia is pretty awesome.

    5. Time Enough For Love

      … Hobbit

  33. Racism. The word officially has no meaning.

    Yesterday, after the internet exploded upon the release of Lily Allen’s new video for “Hard Out Here,” critics didn’t respond with uniform accolades or universal “You Go, Girl!” sentiments. Reception was mixed ? some gave Allen the benefit of the doubt and lauded the video’s middle finger to the sexism endemic to the music industry, and some saw it as, well, kinda racist. There was enough ambiguity in the video’s presentation that people on both sides ? it’s racist! vs. it’s great! ? could make cases to support their viewpoints.

    At least, there was until Allen responded to criticism today with a short blog post that ended up making things worse:

    1. If anyone thinks for a second that I requested specific ethnicities for the video, they’re wrong.

    2. If anyone thinks that after asking the girls to audition, I was going to send any of them away because of the colour of their skin, they’re wrong.

    And they take offense.

    1. Sounds like Lily Allen brilliantly manipulated them into not being offended by the LILY ALLEN HAS A BAGGY PUSSY bit.

    2. Ah, the “perception” of racism. Unsurprisingly, it’s an argument so often used in an attempt to silence people.

      1. The flat tax is racist.

        Finding it remarkable that a half-black guy has decent personal hygiene and can speak standard English totally isn’t.

    3. Thanks for the NSFW-P tag!

      1. I didn’t even get that far down on the page when I posted it. Sorry. There really should have been one in the title. That’s their usual standard.

        1. What am I missing? Is it the ass-shaking video that makes it NSFW?

          1. keep scrolling down.

  34. United Kingdom authorities think it’s too hard to get ASBOs – they propose a law to institute easier-to-obtain IPNAs (Injunctions to Prevent Nuisance and Annoyance)

    One critic whines:

    “What this means in practice is that people going about their ordinary business, such as charity collectors, protestors, carol singers, street pastors?even people simply expressing strong opinions in public?could be classed as annoying and hauled before the courts.

    “I am sure this was not the intention of the government, but this legislation was badly conceived, is badly written and will stop many reasonable and hitherto lawful activities.”

    http://www.charismanews.com/wo…..havior-law

    1. I’m sure it was the intention of the government.

  35. Salon: Nuh-un! The GOP is the anti-science party!

    This argument rests on a false equivalence. The science of global warming is accepted by 97 percent of climatologists. In contrast, nuclear energy is still a very alive debate within the scientific community. I would happily debate Fisher on the merits of nuclear power (I’m still undecided) but it’s misleading to compare the two. Fisher also neglects the fact that many Democratic politicians are behind nuclear power (including Obama), so the point is moot, anyhow. As for GMOs, I’m unaware of any bills ever introduced by congressional Democrats to ban their use (the bill Fisher cites is about labeling ? and it was bipartisan), and it certainly isn’t in the Democratic platform ? while the 2012 Republican platform explicitly dismisses climate science and any attempts to curtail global warming. There certainly is an anti-scientific left, but it hasn’t gained control of the Democratic Party. The practicality of organic farming, like the nuclear power issue, remains a live debate in scientific circles (again, certainly not at the threshold of universal acceptance that global warming has reached).

    And the science of astrology is accepted by 97% of astrologers.

    1. ^Excellent!

    2. As for GMOs, I’m unaware of any bills ever introduced by congressional Democrats to ban their use

      I am unaware of any bills ever introduced by Congressional Republicans to criminalize all abortion. So I guess the Progs can shut the fuck up about that subject now.

      And how is useless labeling of a safe product not “anti-science”?

    3. They’re….they’re still relying on that bullshit ‘survey’. Wow.

    4. Count the fallacies in that. The “debate” among scientists on nuclear power is not about the underlying physics of whether it will work, but whether its benefits are worth its costs.

      The debate about anthropogenic global warming is very much about whether it is an accurate model of the world.

      1. I’d like to hear from the 3% of climatologists that don’t think what they do is a valid science.

        1. I should point out that the guys promoting the 97% line are essentially the same a group of bozos that are so bad at stats that when confronted with:

          Within the Wood dataset, only two (!) respondents purported to believe that Diana faked her own death. Neither of these two respondents also purported to believe that MI6 killed Princess Diana.

          they conclude

          In Study 1(n= 137), the more participants believed that Princess Diana faked her own death, the more they believed that she was murdered.

        2. Those are the ones who make up all the data.

  36. Meet Adriana: The Colombian woman who was the face of the Obamacare website

    The smiling woman who was once the face of the Affordable Care Act’s website has come out of the shadows to stand up to the “cyberbullying” she says she suffered after the law’s flawed kickoff.

    Speaking exclusively to ABC News, Adriana, who asked that only her first name be used, said she was speaking out now to defend herself after weeks of enduring online lampooning.

    “They have nothing else to do but hide behind the computer. They’re cyberbullying,” Adriana told ABC News’ Amy Robach.

    On Oct. 1, 2013, when the ACA’s website launched to enroll Americans in health insurance through federally run exchanges, it was Adriana’s face that greeted them.

    Dubbed the “enigmatic Mona Lisa of health care,” her face was soon mocked, Photoshoped, altered. She became the subject of late-night jokes, partisan hatred and intense speculation.

    The saga of the photo started innocuously enough. Adriana responded to an email from someone at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the agency responsible for the Affordable Care Act’s rollout, about having photos of her and her family taken for free in exchange for allowing the photos to be used to market the new health care law. She was never paid.

    1. Wait, wait, wait….she’s a Colombian model and they didn’t use a picture of her ass?

      Fuck Democrats.

      1. Needs moar Colombian ass pictures. Come on, HM, we depend on you!

    2. Adriana says she hasn’t signed up for it, and is neither in favor nor against it.

      Riiiiiight.

      1. She just happened to be on their email list. Aren’t you?

  37. They do love this argument, don’t they?

    Much like Taylor Swift before her, Jennifer Lawrence is the newest celebrity to express her own version of Madeleine Albright’s oft-quoted words “There is a special place in hell for women who don’t help other women.” When asked by Access Hollywood about what bothers her most about the relationship between women and the media, Lawrence responded, “When girls are just mean to each other. I think that we’re just so unsupportive.”

    Yo, I get what Jennifer Lawrence is saying. I definitely support what she’s saying and agree that we don’t do ourselves any favors by unfairly attacking eachother, but it’s always kind of a bummer when women get the bulk of blame for doing what the system (the PATRIARCHY) has told us we need to do to survive since the fucking dawn of Western civilization. To boil down our problematic relationship with the media to Bitches Being Catty is a touch too simple and does us a disservice.

    1. Nothing catty about tearing apart her answer. Nope. Not at all.

      1. But it’s not her fault. It be dose ebil mens.

  38. What makes a film feminist?

    The truth is that the definition of feminism varies as much between feminists as it does between feminists, non-feminists, and sexists. For those of us in the artistic and theoretical realms, one focus of feminism has long been disrupting false binaries like male/female, masculine/feminine, and gay/straight so that equality is not something that’s measured by whether you treat women the same way you treat men but by whether you regard everyone as a unique yet fully human individual. Feminist criticism needs to work to disrupt a binary, too?the one that defines art as either feminist or sexist. Even the most socially conscious creator can be influenced by the sexism that pervades our culture, whereas a creator interested in telling stories primarily about men can still make a feminist film?or at least a not-sexist one.

    The Bechdel test, the Mako Mori test, and whether the film was written and/or directed by women are all great ways to determine how to spend your movie-going money in ways that support women’s stories. But evaluating the feminism, sexism, and/or lack thereof in a film as a whole rarely results in an easy conclusion?and it definitely requires that you see the movie.

    1. The truth is that the definition of feminism varies as much between feminists as it does between feminists, non-feminists, and sexists.

      Then perhaps the word doesn’t mean anything. #MANSPLANATION

      1. Check your privilege and put away your dictionary there Sparky.

      2. The truth is that the definition of feminism varies as much between feminists as it does between feminists, non-feminists, and sexists.

        I’m personally impressed that there’s a feminist who actually acknowledged that there’s a difference between a non-feminist and a sexist.

        PROGRESS!

        1. Well, a non-feminist is an ignorant woman, and a sexist is a man…

          /femsplained

  39. Apparently Slate has a ‘Dear Prudence’ for men: Is it cool for a gay guy to tell his straight best friend about his gay threesome?

    I’m a gay man in his 30s. Recently, my husband and I had our first threesome, and it was great.

    However, I feel that, as a tree falling in the forest does not make a sound if no one is there to hear it, a threesome hasn’t really happened until you tell one of your friends about it. My closest friend, a fairly conservative married straight guy, has never been shy about disclosing his sexual adventures to me over the years?yet I’m reluctant to do the same with him for fear of making him uncomfortable.

    Of course, I wouldn’t go into graphic detail, but isn’t it a basic duty of friendship to entertain your buddies’ innocent bragging? Is that out of line? All I’m asking for is a high-five over beers.

    I guess saying that happened minus the details would suffice?

    1. As a straight guy, I assume gay guys share both our libido and utter lack of discretion; thus, we figure gay guys have threesomes everyday as a warmup for their daily ten-some.

      1. I give my gay friends a high five if they fuck a dude that’s way out of their league. It’s the polite thing to do.

        1. So which end of the eiffel tower were you?

          1. Form the THAUMATURGIC MAN-MOUND!

          2. After the fact. I’ve never had a devil’s threesome.

            1. Pretty sure those require at least one chick, so that doesn’t answer the question.

      2. Thanks, guys.

    2. The guy doesn’t have any gay friends he can brag to? Or is his issue that he really wants to seduce his conservative married straight guy friend and thinks this might be the way to get that started?

    3. I’d be weirded out if a gay friend told me about that, details or no.

      I’d also be weirded out if a straight friend told me about that.

      But I’m just a weirdo who thinks people should keep private things private.

    4. Dear gay dude,
      Get to know your best friend better and the answer should be fairly obvious. If you’re not sure what you can tell him, he’s probably not your best friend.

    5. How can it be his best friend if half of his life creeps him out?

    6. “has never been shy about disclosing his sexual adventures to me over the years?yet I’m reluctant to do the same with him for fear of making him uncomfortable.”

      Tell him in order to make him feel uncomfortable.

      But then I can’t stand people who go into detail about their sexual encounters and I think people like that deserve to get a taste of what they put others through.

  40. The stupid, it burns.

    I think I’m a fairly intelligent person who has performed well on standardized tests and whatnot. But when I walk into a coffee shop and purchase a baked good, I have zero ability to know how much damage it’s doing to me on a molecular level just by looking at it. I can’t tell if it’s made with butter, olive oil, or a trans fat. I do not have X-ray vision or psychic powers. I am not insulted if you point this out. On the contrary, I’m grateful to live in a world where basic survival doesn’t require me to know all the things all the time. But libertarian paradise is not only one where trans fats aren’t banned, but also one where the baker is allowed to withhold that information from me. Basically, to not be “stupid” by the libertarian estimation, you really do need to have psychic powers.

    1. Indeed, the childish/stupid insistence that the only way you’re being respected is if we pretend you know all the things all the time is the governing philosophy of libertarianism. Which, ironically, is why I have no fucking respect for them at all. It’s idiotic to ignore the fact that we live in a complex world where the things that need to be known are so numerous that no one person can hold them in their heads at all time. We divide people up and give them ownership of certain forms of knowledge and allow each other to be the authorities for it.

      I wonder if she knows that she’s describing UL and not FedGov. She must, right? She’s an intelligent person.

      1. “the things that need to be known are so numerous that no one person can hold them in their heads at all time.”

        Except Obama.

      2. I am too scared to brave the comments but I sincerely hope some intrepid libertarian posted “The Use of Knowledge in Society” in the comments. Not that she’d ever read it.

        1. I made an account just to comment on that article, but all comments are moderated and I know for a fact Amanda deletes comments that are too critical of her.

    2. Shorter version: “I’m like smart and stuff, but thinking about whether a muffin might kill me is too hard! That’s why I’m thankful for the big strong smart government men who can make it so I don’t have to worry about meany-pants bakers”

      It’s like she’s a living version of the sort of stereotypes she thinks all men have of women. “Thinking?!? Why would I do that?? That’s what my TOP MEN are for!!!

      1. No, what’s really stupid is her conclusion that a libertarian world requires you to know everything about everything. Just that assertion already tells you she’s retarded. The fact that in her little hypothetical situation, she could walk right the fuck out without buying anything if the baker won’t tell her what’s in it. Why is this concept so head-bashingly difficult for these people? Are they really this fucking stupid, or is some kind of mass delusion where in their minds they have to buy the muffin if they don’t know what’s in it?

    3. Note to dumbass, all exchanges are asymmetrical in what is and is not known. When a Connecticut coffee house owner buys coffee beans from Brazil, he has to rely on assertions on their quality from the people he purchases from before he can make any reliable claims to you, the dumbass he sells a cup of coffee. The best he can offer you is an assumption he was not defrauded, and then passing on that fraud to you. The information ratio here is the grower knows more about the product than the wholesaler who knows more about the product than the coffee shop owner who knows more about the product than the dumbass who purchased it. If you liked your coffee, you should go about the day and not sweat the details that may break down under rigorous examination, or you could pursue your natural dumbass instincts to destroy the capitalist, free market system that brings about this asymmetrical relationship in the first place. However, you’ll find your monthly coffee ration in your socialist-crony capitalist utopia to be not up to the same par though the information stream will certainly be more equal since there will be less product to gauge.

      1. I hope you don’t mind if borrow and post the example in the comments there. I just want to see their reaction.

        I’ve even found a link to Hayek. If just one person reads it and starts thinking that’s a good thing.

        1. Go ahead, report anything interesting back if you will.

    4. I think I’m a fairly intelligent person who has performed well on standardized tests and whatnot.

      Believing that the latter implies the former disproves that proposition.

    5. Has any intelligent person ever begun a sentence with ‘I think I’m a fairly intelligent person?’ Isn’t that like saying ‘I’m not a racist, but…’

    6. For fuck’s sake, you need to provide a warning when you link to Amanduh.

    7. After searching and searching I finally found a “LEWK AT SUMAHLIUH!! LEBIRTERIANZ IDEAZ AT THEIR FINEST!” My brain hurts.

      1. Finally found a comment*

  41. “One million Californians are getting health insurance cancellation notices, thanks to Affordable Care Act coverage requirements.”

    I do not take delight in human suffering.

    But I do enjoy watching progressives eat crow.

    It’s a shame that it takes so much human suffering before progressives will cave in to reality, but that isn’t my fault. That flaw belongs to the progressives.

    All of this could have been avoided.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.