Ethanol

EPA Recommends Reducing Ethanol Demands

|

Expect lots of roadside corn stands to pop up suddenly.

Earlier this week Ron Bailey made note of the excellent investigation by the Associated Press about the amount of environmental harm caused by the federal government's insistence on pushing forward with mandated ethanol in gasoline.

Today, the Environmental Protection Agency announced it wants to scale back the mandate that determines how much ethanol fuel producers will be required to add to gasoline. Back to the Associated Press:

The Obama administration on Friday proposed to reduce the amount of ethanol in the nation's fuel supply for the first time, acknowledging that the biofuel law championed by both parties in 2007 is not working as well as expected.

While the proposal highlights the government's struggle to ramp up production of homegrown biofuels that are cleaner-burning than gasoline, it is unlikely to mean much for consumers at the pump.

The change would reduce by almost 3 billion gallons the amounts of ethanol and other biofuels blended into gasoline in 2014 than the law requires.

Ethanol representatives are threatening to sue, of course. The cynic in me theorizes some backdoor federal subsidy will reimburse them of any losses should corn prices drop due to oversupply.

Read the whole story here.

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and Reason articles. You can get the widgets here. If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at 24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories at @reason247.

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.

196 responses to “EPA Recommends Reducing Ethanol Demands

  1. How dare the EPA make me root for it.

    1. It does leave a distinct bitter taste in my mouth.

      1. You’re supposed to mix ethanol with fruit juice first.

        1. +2 drink minimum

    2. I want to do more than just root for it… when this proposal gets open for ‘public comment’ I want to flood that thing with comments to make sure ‘Big Ethanol’ doesn’t convince them to change their mind.

  2. All of Amanda Marcotte’s opinions are wrong.

    It’s a cute ad drawing attention to the fact that health insurance is required to cover contraception now. Of course, it’s also an ad that makes the apparently controversial observation that women might feel sexual desire like they’re people, so naturally, conservatives are up in arms.

    That’s not why people were criticizing the Ho-surance ad, you fucking moron.

    1. She’s either insane or just a master troll. Her posts at Slate routinely get hundreds or thousands of comments.

      But the majority of comments are defending the ads and piling up on Rush Limbaugh. What would progressives do without good ol’ Rush to bag on?

      1. Start in on whomever they see as next in line?

        Rinse… Repeat…

        Until all “those” people are gone.

        Then start in on supporters who… just aren’t quite right, ya know.

        Rinse… Repeat…

        For an example – see Cultural Revolution

    2. Well, unless you really want to parse words I think her observation roughly captures Limbaugh’s silly objection to it.

      -“What these ads are really promising, if you like your risky promiscuous lifestyle, you can keep it. That’s what Obama’s promising,” Limbaugh said. “If you like being promiscuous, you can keep on being promiscuous. If you like being a prostitute, then have at it.”

      Equating a woman wanting to sleep with a man with prostitution is a bit ‘over the top’ itself and at least strongly implies some odd ideas about women’s sexuality.

      1. Equating a woman wanting to sleep with a man with prostitution is a bit ‘over the top’ itself and at least strongly implies some odd ideas about women’s sexuality.

        It implies more about what Limbaugh needs to do to persuade a woman to have sex with him.

        1. I imagine he just slips them some of those pain pills.

      2. Limbaugh is a shock jock. Everyone knows that but hilariously the only people who take his every word seriously are the proggies that are obsessed with him.

        1. Well, and the Republicans who do not dare to cross him.

          1. Oh FFS. Are you going to push the ridiculous shreek line that Limbaugh is the leader of the republican party and pulling all of the strings? That all repubs quake in fear of him, scurrying about fulfilling his every command?

            1. Is it ridiculous? Even when he says controversial things most GOP pols are very hesitant to criticize and disclaim him.

              I do not think he is some puppet master, just someone very popular with the conservative base, and most GOP pols do not want them cross with them.

              1. Why should anyone have to denounce what Rush Limbaugh says?

                That implies he’s in a position to speak on behalf of the GOP. I don’t expect every Democrat to denounce Bill Maher or Toure for the retarded and offensive shit they say.

                1. Why would they struggle so with denouncing him (as, most recently the one that pops in my mind, was Romney’s bizarre comments when the Fluke thing was going down)?

                  Politicians are called on to comment on the words or antics of celebrities and pundits commonly, btw.

                  1. Politicians are called on to comment on the words or antics of celebrities and pundits commonly, btw.

                    And the correct answer would be to tell the questioner to hop on the long end of a broomstick and fuck off. Go find celebrity/pundit X and ask them to explain their stupid comments.

              2. Is it ridiculous? Yes.

                1. -Mitt Romney steered clear of the Rush Limbaugh controversy until Friday evening, even avoiding a CNN reporter earlier in the day, when he addressed the issue after an event in Cleveland.

                  “I’ll just say this which is it’s not the language I would have used,” Romney said. “I’m focusing on the issues I think are significant in the country today and that’s why I’m here talking about jobs and Ohio.”

                  I mean, what was that? That kind of thing demonstrates some real concern about getting on Limbaugh’s bad side from the party’s nominee for President for Pete’s sake. He was taking hits, rightly or wrongly, for the ‘war on women’ stuff, Limbaugh was attracting a great deal of heat. A Sista Souljah rebuke would have been great for Romney-unless he was convinced the base would hate him for it…

                  1. I think it has less to do with Rush and more to do with refusing to cede ground on a contentious issue to media-types and bloggers who will beat him about the head with it. He made an innocuous statement obliquely critiquing Rush’s style, but veered away from the content. (For the record, I don’t think Fluke deserves an ounce of civility given that she was, in effect, accusing conservatives of the variety of pregnant-and-barefoot bullshit that feminists have recycled for decades, meanwhile insisting that women need to be catered to like children.)

      3. Limbaugh and Marcotte, two sides of the same coin. The only difference is that Limbaugh is right some of the time.

        1. I actually like listening to Limbaugh. He puts his foot in his mouth sometimes, but he can be entertaining and interesting at times.

          And Marcotte usually makes me wonder how anyone pays her to write things. But here I think Marcotte is correct at least about Limbaugh (and that is who her links refer to in that quoted selection).

          1. Limbaugh’s clearly wrong to equate this to prostitution, but that doesn’t change the fact that the majority of the criticism has been for much more legitimate reasons.

            Hell, a planned parenthood affiliate tweeted after the ads were released and said that it was a disgusting example of right wingers mocking women. They thought it was a Republican parody.

            That’s how awful these ads are. People on the left initially got offended because they assumed it was a parody that was demeaning to women. The fact that it’s the real thing actually makes it far more demeaning to women than if it had been a joke.

            1. “Hell, a planned parenthood affiliate tweeted after the ads were released and said that it was a disgusting example of right wingers mocking women. They thought it was a Republican parody.”

              That had me laughing yesterday to the point of tears.

              The ads ARE demeaning to women. I think this is another case of projection, exactly like the left always crying ‘racist’ when in fact they are racist as hell. These ads tell us what they think of women.

      4. Most of the criticism I’ve seen from conservatives has been that the ads are demeaning to women because they treat women like sex starved little girls rather than responsible adults.

        This is literally the exact opposite of what Amanda Marcotte is claiming they’re saying. I don’t give a shit that she could find a moron like Limbaugh to say something offensive. That’s not the primary argument of the right, and it’s a mendacious lie to claim that it is.

        1. Well, her link is to Limbaugh specifically.

          -they treat women like sex starved little girls rather than responsible adults

          Huh?

          The girls in the ad seem excited to come across a ‘hot guy’ they want to sleep with. If that translates to ‘sex starved little girls rather than responsible adults’ it is perhaps more because of some pre-existing beliefs about women and sex through which one sees the ad. Do ‘responsible adults’ not get excited about the prospect of casual sex at times?

          Do not misunderstand me here, the ad strikes me as silly and the program it is for is morally abominable. But to criticize the ad for showing women wanting to score with a ‘hot guy,’ that strikes me as a bit puritanical, yes.

          1. The girls in the ad seem excited to come across a ‘hot guy’ they want to sleep with. If that translates to ‘sex starved little girls rather than responsible adults’ it is perhaps more because of some pre-existing beliefs about women and sex through which one sees the ad. Do ‘responsible adults’ not get excited about the prospect of casual sex at times?

            Bullshit. The entire Democratic party’s policy towards women is to make them dependent upon the state and to shield them from any consequences of their actions. You don’t have to pay for your own birth control! You can totally swoon over that HAWT guy!

            It’s a middle school conception of what it means to be a woman, complete with a bizarre assumption that the only thing women should care about is the state of their vaginas. No one over the age of 19 should have that kind of obsession with their genitals, but Democrats have somehow come to the conclusion that thinking day and night about your vagina is somehow empowering.

            Yeah, there’s nothing offensive about minimizing women to the point where they’re nothing but walking, dependent vaginas. It’s totally liberating!

            1. The entire Democratic party’s policy towards women is to make them dependent upon the state and to shield them from any consequences of their actions

              That tends to be their approach to many of their constituencies, to be honest.

            2. There were many ads, and these were aimed at young women, Irish. That young women want to sleep with good looking men is hardly demeaning or prostitution like, it is reality for many.

              I agree about the dependency stuff. However, your ‘shield them from the consequences..’

              Wow.

              1. OMG! He’s so hot! Let’s hope he’s as easy to get as this birth control!

                Bo, how is it possible to have a positive view of a girl who thinks like that?

                No one is faulting her for having a libido, it’s just the ad makes her sound like a fucking moron that couldn’t figure out how to simultaneously get a guy in bed and acquire her own birth control.

                1. Actually, this birth control crap is beyond ridiculous. I get angry every time I hear it anymore.

                  Birth control is cheap and easy to get and has been for my whole life. No one is trying to deny women BC. There is no fucking war on women. It is a ridiculous fabrication.

                2. She is just hoping he is easy.

                  If you were at a bar and a friend came up and said ‘see that hot girl over there, she said I can come over her place later, I hope she is as easy to get as ____.’ Would you think less of your friend? Why different for a girl.

                  I agree the ‘easy as this birth control’ is awkward at best, but of course it is an ad touting how easy getting birth control would be under Obamacare.

                  1. If you were at a bar and a friend came up and said ‘see that hot girl over there, she said I can come over her place later, I hope she is as easy to get as ____.’ Would you think less of your friend? Why different for a girl.

                    Really? Women have to charm their way into dick (to paraphrase Patrice O’Neal)? Since when?

              2. I agree about the dependency stuff. However, your ‘shield them from the consequences..’

                Wow.

                Do you not think that paying for someone’s birth control is ‘shielding from consequences?’ In this instance, the consequence is the woman having to buy her own birth control.

                Please explain what you saw in that sentence to necessitate the ‘wow.’

                1. I do not think I should have to pay for someone else’s birth control, but I also do not think that people ‘should’ pay for ‘the consequences’ of having casual sex. People being ‘shielded’ from having unwanted children is a really good thing!

                  The least bad thing about the birth control program is that it ‘shields women from the consequences’ of having sex.

                  1. The least bad thing about the birth control program is that it ‘shields women from the consequences’ of having sex.

                    No. Women buying birth control themselves to shield form unwanted pregnancy is a good and responsible thing.

                    Women willingly making themselves obeisant peasants in the Democrat fiefdom so that they won’t have to worry their pretty little girl brains about birth control is both infantilizing and offensive.

                    1. Women using birth control is a good and responsible thing. It is wrong for them to use the coercive power of the state to get it, and I said that is my criticism of the ad. What I am contesting, and what this thread started about, is this idea that because the woman wants to this hot guy to be ‘easy to get’ that this demeans women, or portrays them as something like prostitutes or sluts.

                    2. What I am contesting, and what this thread started about, is this idea that because the woman wants to this hot guy to be ‘easy to get’ that this demeans women, or portrays them as something like prostitutes or sluts.

                      It is called hyperbole…hyperbole is allowed. If you try to stop it you are worse then Hitler.

              3. You’ve got a lot of growing up to do, Bo. Irish is on the money, and your immaturity is why you can’t see it.

                1. Just curious, what position of his is he ‘on the money’ about?

                  1. I left that for you to ponder for yourself, that is an esseential part of the growth process.

                    1. esseential. In most instances, one ‘e’ should suffice.

                    2. I see, I shall commence ponderation.

            3. “No one over the age of 19 should have that kind of obsession with their genitals,…”

              Actually, I am well over 19 and I am obsessed with their genitals (vaginas) .

              1. How demeaning (to yourself?)!

                1. Bo, if a political party treated you like you didn’t care about jobs, didn’t care about the economy, didn’t care about foreign policy…but instead cared primarily about your penis, what would your thoughts be? Would you think that this political party thought of you as a person, or as walking genitalia?

                  Look at those ads again. The ones with the men show them getting injured in some way. Several of the ones for the women involve their vaginas. The Ryan Gosling ones both do, as well as the now notorious ‘Ho-surance’ ad.

                  Are you really telling me that this difference in messaging doesn’t say something about the way the Dems think about women?

                  1. See my comment above, Irish. These ads tell us exactly what they think of women.

                    It is the same as their racist meme.

                    Is it Epi that claims they are all about projection? I think that is pretty accurate.

                  2. -but instead cared primarily about your penis

                    That is certainly an unfair characterization. This is not an ad for some gel that will stimulate sexual arousal in a woman’s vagina, it is about birth control, which prevents unwanted pregnancy.

                    If a political party wanted there to be less unwanted pregnancies I would frankly commend them (though not if they went about through coercive means).

                2. *laughing*

                  My purpose for being on this planet is women. Many when I was younger and now one in particular. It is not demeaning in any way.

                  1. And neither is it demeaning for a woman to woman to hope a hot guy she meets is easy.

                3. Could you point out exactly where Irish said he wants sluts to get knocked up? You can’t because he fucking didn’t. You only heard it because the words went into your fuckbrain and came out as something else entirely. Why Irish is wasting his time with you is beyond me.

                  1. Well, I said ‘shield from the consequences of their actions’ by which I meant that women should have to buy birth control themselves if they’re going to have sex, but are shielded from the cost as those costs are now unfairly socialized. Why is it fair for someone who isn’t having sex to pay for the birth control of people who are?

                    For some reason, Bo immediately assumed that my throwaway sentence meant that I want women to get pregnant out of wedlock.

                    1. -Bo immediately assumed that my throwaway sentence meant that I want women to get pregnant out of wedlock.

                      It certainly was not clear that by ‘consequences of [sex]’ you were talking about the costs of BC, not pregnancy. It is pretty common parlance for people to mean ‘the consequences of sex’ that women ‘try to avoid’ to be pregnancy or STDs, but not ‘the cost of BC.’

                      I guess I could have clarified and if that is in fact what you meant, mea culpa.

                  2. If you were at a bar and a friend came up and said ‘see that hot girl over there, she said I can come over her place later, I hope she is as easy to get as ____.’ Would you think less of your friend? Why different for a girl.

                    If my friend then said “I hope she’s signed up for Obamacare’s free birth control so I don’t have to worry about knocking her up!”, then yes, I’d conclude my friend is fucking moron who deserves to get the clap.

                    Relying on a government program for something as basic and readily accessible as contraceptives is ridiculous.

                    1. -If my friend then said “I hope she’s signed up for Obamacare’s free birth control

                      This is of course the point. You would think your friend, and by analogy this woman, is bad in some way because they want to benefit from coerced benefits. But you would not think them bad because they hoped they would ‘get lucky’ with the woman. And this is what Limbaugh and several other conservatives have said about the ad, not that the woman is a willing parasite resorting to coerced goodies, but that she is a ‘prostitute’ or ‘ho’ or ‘slut’ because she wants to ‘hook up’ with the young man.

                  3. ‘shield them from any consequences of their actions’

            4. Please stop replying to blue tulpa.

      5. “Equating a woman wanting to sleep with a man with prostitution is a bit ‘over the top’ itself and at least strongly implies some odd ideas about women’s sexuality.”

        You know, you’re almost right. But I’m paying for her to have sex, so it’s exactly prostitution. Worse, I’m getting screwed because I’m not.

        Unless you want me to call it altruism for renting out Betties for maybe wingmen I’ll never meet.

        1. -But I’m paying for her to have sex

          That is ridiculous. You are paying for her to take birth control.

          It is wrong as it is coerced, but it is not ‘paying her to have sex.’

          1. Two problems: In the hosurance ad, it is specifically that she is on the pill for sex. So with respect to that, your rebuttal fails completely.

            The second, and more general condition, is only the case if I’m only paying for the pill when it’s medically necessary due to health issues. Where “I want to get laid” is not a health issue. Which is also not the case.

            So yes, it’s still prostitution.

            1. In the ad the birth control is ‘easy’ because it is paid for by you and me. The sex with the guy is not.

              With your reading, if I buy a condom and give it to a woman, who then sleeps with a guy the woman is somehow a ‘prostitute.’

              As I said, ridiculous.

              1. No ‘who then sleeps’ but ‘sleeps with a guy because you gave her a condom,’ then yes she’s a prostitute. More to the point, you’re her pimp. Not a simple abstract with condoms, with condoms you’ll find that’s commonly criminal as described.

                But the topic is about the birth-control purchased not for the accidental ‘if she sleeps with a hot guy’ but ‘so she can sleep with a hot guy.’ Which is, still, prostitution if anyone is paying for it but her.

              2. In the ad the birth control is ‘easy’ because it is paid for by you and me. The sex with the guy is not.

                So if you and me payed for the coke, booze and hotel room that would not be making it easy?

            2. I buy my spouse nice things. In many cases it results in me getting laid that night. Does that equate to prostitution?

              1. Yes. You just have a long term exclusive contract.

              2. She’s a big time whore, why do you think you respect her so much? Like most men, you wouldn’t give a nun the time of day because, in truth, she is low on the rung of success.

              3. I buy my spouse nice things. In many cases it results in me getting laid that night.

                Really? No begging?

                Huh!

      6. Limbaugh, at very rare intervals, will come up with a decent argument. However it’s shit like this that keeps the GOP who align with him from power. They keep shooting themselves in the foot.

    3. No it is not, but she has to say that. Water carriers carry water.

    4. Marcotte is the TEAM BLUE exemplification of the KULTUR WAR. No matter what the subject, she finds a way to make it KULTUR WAR. Somehow, some way, she will manage to make it about liberals vs conservatives, TEAM RED vs TEAM BLUE. The question is whether she does this because she is obsessed, or because she knows it will get her columns read no matter how stupid.

      1. Huh? She’s criticizing people who criticized the ads first, and specifically people who are noted conservatives who injected certain traditional sexual views into their criticism.

        1. Do you ever read the countless Marcotte links people drop on the PM Links? Why don’t you go read some and get back to me. Or better yet, don’t, New Tulpa.

          1. Do you ever read my posts? Or maybe just the ones in this very discussion?

            -And Marcotte usually makes me wonder how anyone pays her to write things.

  3. The problem is that there isn’t enough gasoline sold to absorb all the ethanol the EPA wants to foist off on us. They realized this and pushed for the E15 (15% ethanol blend rather than the current 10%)standard but had to back off for a while because E15 fuel would violate too many auto manufacturers’ warranties.

    15% ethanol, coming soon to a gas tank near you.

    1. Trashing your lawnmower!

      And maybe car, too.

  4. biofuel law championed by both parties in 2007

    How did Obama vote on that one? Did he make a public Statement about his vote?

    1. Given he won Iowa I imagine he promised them they could keep their ethanol subsidies.

  5. give me 5% ethnol again so i can fill up 50 gallon drums when the price dips so i can hedge my expenses from fluctuating gas prices.

    10% last for 90-180 days at best so it is useless 5% was like 9-12 months.

    1. Dennis: Now explain to me how exactly we’re gonna calculate the totals.

      Charlie: Oh, it’s easy, dude. You pour gas into the car using one of these funnels, right? And I count how much gas is going into the car.

      Dennis: All right, let me?let me just stop you right there. How exactly are you planning on counting a liquid?

      Charlie: Uh, I know how to count, dude.

      1. I’m nearing the end of season 4 now.

        The “Day Man” musical was pretty fucking hysterical.

        1. “The Nightman Cometh” musical episode is the last one in season 4, so if you watched it (and have been watching in order), you are done with season 4.

          Great, great season. Possibly their best season.

          WILDCARD, BITCHES! YEEEEHAAAAAWWWWW!!!

    2. Can’t you just remove the ethanol pretty easily? Add water, shake, remove water. Much of the ethanol will move into the water.

      1. The problem with that is ethanol raises the octane rating of the fuel. Removing it means what’s left over is more likely to cause pinging and detonation.

    3. 10% last for 90-180 days at best so it is useless 5% was like 9-12 months.

      With stabilizer, I’ve kept gasoline for more than a year and a half and it ran fine. One Jerrycan that went 30 months (in a very humid place) didn’t do so well.

  6. Crippling effects of Voter ID laws on minorities –

    “In 2011 there were 672,874 total votes [in Texas]. In 2013, under the voter ID law there were 1,099,670 total votes. In Hidalgo County alone the number of Hispanic voters quadrupled from 4,000 to 16,000. Gregg Abbott, who is expected to run for governor, stated that critics of the voter ID laws have now run out of arguments. This is hardly unusual to Texas. Both Mississippi and Georgia also had increases in total voting and sizable increases in minority voting after they passed their laws.”

    http://freepatriot.org/2013/11…..-liberals/

    1. I do not think you can determine if these laws suppressed votes by looking at the overall counts, since there can be many reasons why minority voting can shoot up, and it might have been ‘even higher’ sans these laws.

      I also do not get some things from the article. How would it know the increase of voters in Hidalgo County were Hispanics?

      1. So the turnout doesn’t rebut the “voter suppression” meme?

        The talking point was, “IDs required at polling places – minorities, students hardest hit.”

        So, do these stats conform to, or conflict with, the talking point?

        1. Looking at, say, the 1890 Mississippi constitution, which was passed to limit the black vote, we see the number of black voters, after adoption of the constitution, going…anyone? Bueller?

          That’s right, going down.

          If it went *up,* the Democratic drafters of the racist constitution would have done a facepalm and their wives would said, “you idiots can’t even do racism right!”

          So I suppose all the Republican Voter ID people are kicking themselves right now for the failure of their evil racist schemes?

        2. Did you even read what I wrote?

          1. Let me give you an example.

            Black voting increased a lot in 2008. Was that because of changes in voting laws, or the absence of voter ID laws?

            It was because the first credible black candidate for President was running and predicted to win I would say.

            In other words, lots of things can cause voter turnout of certain groups to go up or down. Just pointing to any given election after X has happened and saying ‘a-ha, X must have caused it’ or ‘a-ha, X did not cause it’ would be kind of sloppy reasoning, right?

            1. Sure it would be sloppy reasoning if I had said voter id laws caused higher voter turnout.

              What does that have to do with what I actually said?

              1. Again, the argument against these laws was omg voter suppression! When more voters vote than before, then how has there been suppression? The predictions were that fewer monorities would vote, not that there would be an increase which might have bigger.

                1. BCE not understand. BCE will find way to parse your words into something they’re not.

                2. Eduard, I have explained it to you. I will try again.

                  Do you think tax increases suppress economic performance? I do.

                  When Bill Clinton and a Democrat congress passed a major tax increase, and then the economy did not perform badly, but actually did good, does that demonstrate that raises in taxes do not have negative economic effects?

                  Of course not, because it could be that, because of other factors, the economy performed well in spite of the tax raises, and it would have performed even better without it.

                  Likewise, it could be that, because of other factors, turnout in this election increased in spite of the ID laws, and it would have been even higher without it.

                  1. You seem to lack awareness of the actual arguments of voter id opponents.

                    They dont say, gosh, minority votes might increase at a lower ratr. They say its voter suppression and, tellingly, the new jim crow. Under jim crow, the number of black votes went DOWN, it wasnt a question of slowing the rate of increase as you suggest. Google voter id jim crow for examples.

                    1. And for the third time:

                      There can be suppression from a policy even in an overall increase.

                      Just like there can be retardation of economic performance from a policy even in an economic uptick.

                      Eduard, really, do I have to break it down into symbolic logic letters?

                    2. If you can find a real world critic of voter id eho said omg this might slow the rste of increase in dem votes, please let me know, because you seem to be moving thrir goalposts for them

                    3. Are you not the one moving the goalposts (specifically to ‘what ‘real world critic[s] of voter id [had] said?’

                      I am just talking about where they may have had a suppressive effect, and that your data does not disprove they did not. You seem to want to keep going to what these ‘real world critic[s]’ said.

                    4. Yes I want to focus on the criticism actually made against voter id by dnc officials, congressmen, and the usual suspects who are not talking about halting the rate of increase but about the new jim crow. It seems you cant defend that position or find a real world critic who worries about slowing the rate of increase.

                    5. -slowing the rate of increase.

                      Most of the critics I read or heard said they were worried about some number of voters being suppressed (granted, I tend to come across this in reading legal briefs and opinions). And, for the fourth time, that claim is not necessarily disproven by a showing of general increase.

                      OK, so this is the fourth exchange with you not commenting on the tax analogy. Do you think the fact that the economy performed well after the Clinton tax increase demonstrates that tax increases do not have a retarding effect on economies?

                      If not, can you explain how the two situations are not analogous?

                    6. The tax example shows repubs making predictions about clintons tax which didnt come true. Advantage clinton, im sorry to say. The reps could have called the tax unnecessary, or they could have said the economy would still boom butat a lower rate, but instead they made predictions that didnt come true. So its a good analogy with the voter id critics.

                    7. Correlation is not causation. But anti-correlation disproves the negative. Hence, voter ID laws definitely DO NOT suppress voter participation.

                      QED BCE.

                    8. If you want to say specifically that it did not result in suppression of overall voter participation, but my point is that it does not prove that voter suppression of some voters did not occur because of the laws.

                  2. “Likewise, it could be that, because of other factors, turnout in this election increased in spite of the ID laws, and it would have been even higher without it.”

                    It could also be that there really are invisible flying reindeer.

                    Your argument is absurd.

                    C’mon Bo Peep. Who is going to buy that shit? Minority voter participation increased after voter ID laws went into effect, clear evidence that the laws are not barriers to entry as you say below. So now you are saying participation would have been even higher if not for those dang voter laws. You are starting to sound like Tony.

                    The one single societal participation activity that no one should have to show ID for is voting. Not driving, getting govt assistance, voting in union elections, renting a hotel room, ad infinitum, but not to vote.

                    The argument is ridiculous on its face.

                    1. -Your argument is absurd.

                      Why did voter participation by, say, blacks increase significantly in 2008? Was it because of the lack of voter ID law at the time?

                      Of course not. It can easily be shown that factors other than voter ID laws can result in differences in voter turnout. So in any given election any of those factors could result in an overall increase IN SPITE OF a suppressive effect by such laws.

                      Remember, I am certainly not saying it proves the ID laws suppress. It disproves any claim that they must or necessarily result in lower overall turnout. But that fact alone does not prove there was no suppression.

                    2. “Remember, I am certainly not saying it proves the ID laws suppress. It disproves any claim that they must or necessarily result in lower overall turnout. But that fact alone does not prove there was no suppression”

                      It doesn’t prove that there was either.

                      No one is required to prove a negative

                      The burden of proof is on those claiming the affirmative condition.

                      And any affirmative condition claim about any conceivable aspect of existence in the Universe that cannot be proven to be so with literally and exactly the same level of definitiveness that I can prove that my car has 4 wheels attached to isn’t proven at all and the negative prevails by default.

                    3. In other news, ethanol subsidies were cut…

          2. FUCK OFF you lying, trolling SOCKPUPPET.

            This is the usual “Blue Tulpa” shtick:

            Asks a stupid leading question

            How would it know the increase of voters in Hidalgo County were Hispanics?

            Then plays dumb and shifts goal posts if anyone answers with the obvious

            88.35% of the population were Hispanic or Latino of any race.

            Don’t waste your time and H&R comment space by engaging it.

            1. ‘88.35% of the population were Hispanic or Latino of any race.’

              1. Where did that fact come from in the discussion? I can not ignore something that was not there.

              2. Ecological fallacy much?

              1. Again, this ‘88.35%’ claim was not mentioned in this discussion, so I can not see how I was somehow dishonestly ignoring something that was not here.

                Besides, even if the county is 88% Hispanic, and there was an increase in overall votes, assuming the increase was all ‘Hispanic voters’ would be fallacious.

                1. Lord, did you actually write a second post to clarify your new found love?

                  Get a room 😉

                2. I knew what you meant. Actually we probably agree on at least 80% +. We just chose to highlight the differences.

                  1. -We just chose to highlight the differences.

                    This is sounding like a CW show.

    2. Voter ID laws = suppression of minority vote is as ridiculous as the war on women.

      There is no rational argument against voter ID laws. The lack of them makes voter fraud easier and the dems like that because they engage in voter fraud.

      It is as simple as that.

      1. -There is no rational argument against voter ID laws.

        You have an odd idea of rational then, because here is one, and one that I would think a libertarian could appreciate:

        1. government barriers to entry fall disproportionately on groups that on average have less education, resources, and experience navigating government bureaucracies, and have a suppressing effect on entry.
        2. requiring government licenses is a barrier to entry
        3. Therefore, requiring government licenses will fall disproportionately on groups that on average have less education, resources, and experience navigating government bureaucracies, and have a suppressing effect on entry

        The whole Voter ID! hysteria is stale Republican sour grapes from losing two elections to the Secret Muslim President. Every political party does this when they lose to a hated foe (remember all the claims of election fraud by the Democrat Party after Kerry lost to W Bush)? With all due respect, pull your head out of the Big Two’s behinds and get with something like the LP, it will get you out of these silly ruts.

        1. Right. I say again, there is no rational argument against voter ID laws.

          (2. is false)

          I will add that the republicans are not innocent of voter fraud.

          Your last sentence makes no sense to me.

          1. 1. Do you not know the difference between ‘false’ and rational (or ‘valid’ and ‘sound?’

            2. -(2. is false)

            Is it not literally requiring a license to entry? You must have the government approved document to vote.

            1. Yes. Rational arguments can contain false premises. Still, we reject them. Good grief.

              I will rephrase. There is no acceptable argument against voter ID laws.

              See my post above.

            2. Is it not literally requiring a license to entry?

              Nope. It’s a requirement that you (1)Prove that you are who you claim to be and (by state ID with photograph) (2) Prove that you have a right to vote in the district of a given state (by voter registration card).

              1. -Prove that you are who you claim to be and (by state ID with photograph) (2) Prove that you have a right to vote in the district of a given state (by voter registration card).

                By getting a government approved form via a government prescribed process, right?

                We call those…licenses. And libertarians recognize in most other areas that their imposition acts as a barrier to entry.

                1. By getting a government approved form via a government prescribed process, right?

                  Yes, sort of like the voting process.

                  We call those…licenses.

                  No. We call a limited nonpossessory right to use for a limited term “licenses.”

                  Objecting to requiring people identify themselves and prove that they are residents of the district they are voting in is as silly as objecting to the states running elections in the first place.

                  And “barriers to entry” is a term applied to commerce. When talking about voting, the correct term is “disenfranchisement.”

                  1. I am talking about a license like a business license, or a gun license.

                    You have to go wait in line, fill out paperwork, show documents, and pay a fee.

                    And these certainly act as a barrier to entry in the economic sector, that is an non-controversial point to most libertarians. Why you do not accept that they analogously do the same in the context of voting is puzzling.

                    1. I am talking about a license like a business license, or a gun license.

                      A business license registers you for taxation purposes.

                      Gun license (where applicable) registers that you may (or may not) own a firearm.

                      State ID just identifies your appearance, name, birthday, and address.

                      Why you do not accept that they analogously do the same in the context of voting is puzzling.

                      Because I don’t vote and requiring ID is not facially discriminatory, and well within the states’ powers to determine how it elects is officials and Congressional delegates.

                  2. Objecting to requiring people identify themselves and prove that they are residents of the district they are voting in is as silly as objecting to the states running elections in the first place.

                    The former is far sillier. The latter isn’t really silly at all.

    3. From what I’ve read, voter ID laws are a solution in search of a problem. There are very few cases of actual voter fraud, i.e., someone casting a ballot that they should not have. It’s not enough that the law might not do too much harm (and Bo is right in his arguments above, the linked story doesn’t prove that it does little harm). It should actually have to do some good.

      1. From what I’ve read, voter ID laws are a solution in search of a problem.

        Well, the problem is there. But truly sophisticated operators don’t do anything so gauche as get people to vote multiple times. They just monkey with the tally after the polls close. (See: 1948 TX Senate Election; LBJ; Ballot Box 13)

        1. Again, from what I’ve read (and I’m always happy to be educated), there have been (recent) instances when fictitious or ineligible voter registrations were submitted, but very few cases of ballots being cast that should not have been. Fraudulent registrations are bad, but voter ID laws aren’t needed to stop them.

          To be fair, a lot of the arguments against voter ID laws are also stupid. Anyone who can make it to a polling place can probably make it to a DMV or some other location where they can get an ID. And if they can’t, then just allow voter IDs to be issued at any number of other government offices. But again, it isn’t enough that a law not do harm, it should actually do some real good.

          1. -Anyone who can make it to a polling place can probably make it to a DMV or some other location where they can get an ID.

            I am not sure about this.

            People can get a ride to a polling place (parties have incentive to offer this), and then casting a vote essentially involves just standing in line and then having a volunteer walk you through the voting process.

            Getting an approved ID could involve getting to a government agency, and then having to stand in line (so far, analogous), but then filling out forms and supplying other government forms, which, of course, implies some yet other trips, forms, and possibly fees.

            I do not pretend that a ton of people would find this to be a barrier, but some would (I am thinking of ‘shut ins’ and very poorly educated people). Given that in-person voter fraud is going to be very rare it strikes me as not worth the (admittedly not great) suppression.

            Plus, I just hate the growing trend of government ‘papers, please’

            1. We are in agreement here. But just as parties have an incentive to bus people to a polling place, they have an incentive to help people apply for a voter ID.

              1. Perhaps, but if so I think the last thing I would want to see is an increase in voters having to depend on political parties to enable them to vote.

            2. Navigating government bureaucracy is a bigger barrier to those with jobs because they don’t have time to sit all day at the dmv. There is herd of people who are at the dmv or utility counter by day and then go to the er at night. They are adept at navigating government bureaucracy because they can put in the time.

          2. Fraudulent registrations are bad, but voter ID laws aren’t needed to stop them.

            This is a good point. Some of these fradulent registrations could be stopped by diligence on the part of the electoral board.

            Problem is, the electoral boards are usually in the hands of the party faithful or people sitting on death’s doorstep, waiting for the Grim Reaper to answer.

        2. -They just monkey with the tally after the polls close.

          Of course, and voter ID does little for that.

      2. Thats a good argument, but it doesnt have the emotive power of the omg jim crow crowds assertions. The article didnt say it worked at deterring fraudin the state of landslide lyndon johnson, just that it didnt stop an increase in minority votes.

        William f buckley, in paraphrase, said hus dad was such a loyal democrat he rose from the grave in 1948 to vote for lyndon johnson for senator.

        1. And if you know there are burglars in the neighborhood, you dont leave the back door unlocked because, oh well, if they try to break in theyll probably use the window.

          1. Actually, that is a good example.

            My friend’s family is so paranoid, even though they have never experienced a break in, that they lock their doors all the time. Sometimes they have locked themselves out, but I do not think they ever prevented a break in by their locking.

            I trust I do not have to flesh out the analogy.

            1. My Mom is also really paranoid about home invasion. When I visit, it can be the middle of the day, with both her and my dad home, and the deadbolt will be locked. It’s annoying, not because I don’t care about my mom’s safety, but because she lives in an extremely safe neighborhood in a very safe town.

              1. My premise was if you KNOW there are burglars in the neighborhood, not if you have a vague fear.

                And we KNOW there are democrats in the vicinity of the polling booths, and theyve been known to break in through the window (phony registrations) and through the front door (phony returns). So we know there burglars around and they want to break in. So why is the back door (floaters and repdaters) left unlocked and unguarded?

                And what we know about floaters and repeaters is that few were caught. So maybe they dont exist. But we know thrre are prople prepared to use floaters and repeaters if they think it will help them.

                1. I should add republicans being seen near the polls, too.

                2. Please cite some statistics (like I said, I’m happy to be educated on this, or anything). Absent that, what you wrote above seems to me to amount to vague fear.

                  1. Really, ive happily voted without them needing id, just that I know my address and sign a thing that im really me. No one stole my identity AFAIK. I just dont like the race baiting and the burglars (democrats) assuring us I dont need to lock the back door because they always use the front.

                    1. Maybe the dems and reps stopped using floaters and repeaters and is all much ado about nothing. It used to be a big thing. Its how edgar allen poe was supposed to have dked, they plied him with booze and took him from one polling place to anothrr until he collapsed.

      3. In my life I have heard a number of times where the votes in a district exceeded the number of registered voters, where people were seen voting in more than one district, where a district would go overwhelmingly 90+% for one candidate etc etc.

        Voter fraud is a problem. I agree with AC that the primary problem is monkeying with the tally, but there is front end fraud as well.

        Does anyone think requiring ID prevents minorities from applying for government assistance?

        1. http://www.truethevote.org/new…..ts-figures

          That was the first site that came up when I Google “cases of voter fraud”. Almost all the bullet points on their front page deal with registration, not casting actual ballots, and most of the problems with registration sound more like out of date records, not malicious fraud.

          The one bullet point that goes beyond that claims to have found 99 cases of potential (not confirmed) voter fraud in 4 states. That isn’t very much.

          And this is a pro-voter ID website, so they have an incentive to report on as much fraud as possible to build support for their position.

          I’m not saying you are wrong, Suthenboy, but the documented cases I have seen are very few and far between.

        2. -Does anyone think requiring ID prevents minorities from applying for government assistance?

          I do not know what requirements for getting government assistance. Are they required to show ID? Are they required to show it periodically (many people that do not have the appropriate ID had it at one time, and then lost it, and since they already had it in obtaining a job, bank account or benefits, or whatever, they simply do not need it again)? If so I bet it does act as a barrier to some of them getting benefits (of course, they are often going to be more motivated to get those benefits than to vote).

      4. the linked story doesn’t prove that it does little harm

        It proves that there is no proof that it harms.

  7. OT:

    This is what happens when you put a pile of free money in a room, hire a guy to dole it out:

    Silas Potter Jr., the disgraced former head of a Seattle Public Schools small-business program, was sentenced to 43 months in prison today in a theft-and- kickback scheme tied to no-work contracts.

    “I let down a lot of people,” a contrite Potter told King County Superior Court Judge Michael Trickey, who imposed the sentence.

    Potter, 62, pleaded guilty in April to 36 counts of theft in a case that rocked the school district.

    In a plea agreement, Potter admitted he approved dozens of school-district checks paying for services from a Tacoma nonprofit called Grace of Mercy, while “knowing no work had been completed.”

    In return, Potter said he received some of that money back from David A. Johnson, who ran the nonprofit, which billed the district for classes it was supposedly teaching to small-business owners.

    http://blogs.seattletimes.com/…..ft-scheme/

    No, apparently it’s not an obvious question asking why a school district would even have a “small business development program”.

    City government is an ongoing criminal enterprise.

    1. All government is an ongoing criminal enterprise, Paul.

      1. Say my naaame say my name!

    2. He’s 62 and pulling this nonsense?

      Something needs to be done about city government. I think breaking cities up into fiefdoms like Victoria would help.

      1. Funny you mention this, City Council races have (as of this last socialist-electing season) have been turned into district-based elections, instead of city-wide elections.

        The handwringing has already begun over city council members voting the interest of their neighborhoods instead of the cabaal of activists, urban farmers and scamming developers the city as a “whole”.

    3. “…asking why a school district would even have a “small business development program”.

      We dont have to ask, Potter and Johnson demonstrated why the program exists.

    4. That’s why local elections are so much fun. It’s like a fight to see who gets to raid the piggy bank for the next four years. Turnout is usually low, especially if your city runs elections off year to the general elections, so if you get a big enough block of people (which usually isn’t that many), the mayoral candidates will come a-whorin’ for your votes.

      If you get an alderman or city councillor on your side, that’s where the real control is. Once they’ve done their constituent pay-offs, they’re free to abuse the office how ever it suits them.

      1. Seattle has slipped into the typical progressive urban bullshit.

        Real people don’t even vote, it’s all down to a rabid cabaal of neighborhood activists, scamming developers, SEIU members (city employees), urban farmers and NAACP splinter groups.

  8. it is unlikely to mean much for consumers at the pump.

    Should help food prices though.

  9. Socialist Sawant wins City Council seat, replaces socialist Conlin.

    Libertopia imminent.

    http://blogs.seattletimes.com/…..-at-5-p-m/

  10. For Those Who Do Not Think About the Essential Connection Between Property and Other Rights

    -In Paris, the plunder of Jewish possessions began with the arrival of German troops in June 1940. At first, it applied only to art collections. But as soon as the Final Solution was devised in January 1942, the confiscations spread to the entire Jewish population, most of which comprised poor immigrants from Eastern Europe. Stripping Jews of their belongings was part and parcel of the effort to destroy them; pillage was an essential tool of extermination.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11…..inion&_r=0

    1. Property rights are human rights.

      See my post above about Sawant who wants to “collectivize everything”.

      Fucking nazis.

  11. Are there ANY discussions tonight that don’t involve Blue Tulpa?

    Gays in the military, your thoughts?

    Circumcised penis, yes or no?

    Reason’s censorship of trolls, hypocritical?

    1. Fine, yes, no.

      1. While we agree on the first two, I find something distasteful about a private organization that makes its living by the first amendment, not extending the same courtesy to its customers. Provided they are not disruptive.

        1. It depends on the nature of the troll. I wouldn’t approve of censoring someone like Tony because he posts on-topic and argues sincerely, even if it isn’t in good faith.

          Palin’s Buttplug shits on the threads with ad hominens, but he can only disrupt things to the extent that he goads people into responding.

          But when you get trolls like Mary Stack who’s sole purpose is to ruin the thread by spamming it with nonsense, that’s when the site owes it to us regulars to ban such trolls.

          1. Agreed. Mary was disruptive.

            Not sure I agree with the decision to keep killing American. He’s an asshole, for sure, but I don’t think he’s disruptive.

    2. Have we settled the dispute about whether lincoln was gay?

      I hear he had an affair with the pizza delivery man who brought him his deep dish pizza.

      1. Lincoln was definitely a flamer, Mary Todd was a man and the children were orphans stolen from the diamond mines as a cover.

      2. Married plump crazy woman had a shit load of kids with her…

        You really can’t get more hetero then that.

        One might even call it “deep hetero”.

        1. I almost used the phrase “he stuck it in crazy.” Then I realized how much all of you have corrupted me and how much I must be offending virginia postrel.

          1. It’s a shame she got the impression she did. She’s well spoken of here. Stings a little when people you admire admonish you.

            Not sure why she said what she did. Either

            1. She doesn’t get our banter.
            2. She’s not who we thought she was.

            1. Wait, she admonished ya’ll? Where?

            2. 3. Doesn’t matter.
              I thought she was a good editor; pretty sure I started getting the mag when she was editor. But her approval is not one of my goals.
              If she (or anyone) happens to dislike me for what I post here, tough. I see nothing I’d retract.

            3. So if the whole h&r community gets together and everyone tells dirty jokes, and then uninstructed people or unbelievers should come in, will they not say that you are out of your minds?

              But if everyone is on their best behavior, and an unbeliever or uninstructed person should come in, she will be convinced by everyone…

              (1 Cor 14:23-24, loosely paraphrased, NAB)

              1. But if everyone is on their best behavior…

                Fuck that.

                Here I can speak like I do with my close friends. I can voice my opinion or discuss philosophy without the need to put on airs. I can joke and bust on folks because almost everyone here is thick skinned and can give as good as they get. I like the familiarity and brutal honesty.

                If she or newcomers don’t. Tough shit. Part of being free is that I don’t need to worry about offending the easily offended.

                1. When and where were we criticized by her??

                  1. Twitter. Said she doesn’t want to cruise with us. Can’t find the link.

                    1. Ouch, very ouch.

                      I hope no @reason commenters go on the cruise, because I don’t want to meet these jerks.

                      ? Virginia Postrel (@vpostrel) November 15, 2013

                      [removed][removed]

    3. I can’t think of a single reason not to circumcise. Uncircumcised penises are weird. Anyone who says differently is not just wrong, but very likely morally bankrupt.

      1. You know who else was uncircumcised?

        1. Goliath and the army of Philistines?

    4. gays yes. trannies no
      yes
      yes, but understandable

  12. So for the second straight day that coyote was spotted in my neighborhood, this time by my dad when was pushing my baby nephew in his stroller.

    He phoned the police department and unsurprisingly they can’t do anything about it unless it attacks someone because California state law classifies it as wildlife that can’t be disturbed unless it poses an imminent threat to public safety.

    1. So you can only kill it if its coming right at you?

      Wink, wink.

    2. A single won’t mess with adults. A young child perhaps, but rarely. Cats and small dogs OTOH…

      My wife’s cat bought it several years back and we suspect a coyote.

      1. My dog is too friendly for his own good, he’d want to play with the coyote and sniff it if it came upon him, so that concerns me about walking him.

        1. It won’t mess with him if you are there. I’ve had a couple stalk my dogs while out running. They ran along the ridge above us and I’m sure they would have tried something had my dogs been alone. As it was they kept their distance.

      2. My sister has lost 4 cats over the years to coyotes.

        Coyotes gotta eat too.

        1. Coyotes gotta eat too.

          Which makes me think The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc is not very clever or really does not care about Coyote in his neighborhood.

          All he needs to figure out is how to feed a coyote poison without feeding it to the neighborhood pets.

          1. I’d rather not go to jail for animal cruelty or some shit they’d throw at me for killing a wild animal.

            Apparently only people in rural areas are permitted to kill varmint species like coyotes.

    3. When was the last time a Coyote attacked a human being? 1893?

      1. Be careful, once they realize they cant get the roadrunnrr theyll be tired and hungry and take it out on some human.

  13. Tony’s beliefs are exactly what is responsible for this kind of shit.

    1. I don’t think tweaking and getting under the skin of a forum of people who have an ideology in common bears any responsibility here. Oh, you mean, Tony taken at face value. Why would you ever do that?

  14. Sometimes man you jsut have to roll with it.

    http://www.Privacy-Web.tk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.