Direct to Consumer Genetic Testing

Let My Genes Go! And Leave 23andMe Alone.

Regulators evidently fear an imminent outbreak of DIY mastectomies.

|

Earlier this week the Food and Drug Administration sent a warning letter to the direct-to-consumer gene testing company 23andMe ordering the company to stop marketing its $99 genotype screening test. The agency does, in fact, have broad authority to regulate any medical "device" ranging from bedpans to pacemakers that is used to treat or diagnose people. So if tongue depressors fall under the FDA's jurisdiction, it's pretty clear that 23andMe's saliva collection kits do too. The letter gives the company 15 days in which to respond. If the agency doesn't hear back or like what the company has to say, it advises that it might initiate regulatory actions that could "include, but are not limited to, seizure, injunction, and civil money penalties."

23andMe has been selling its Personal Genome Service since 2006, so why did the FDA act now? It made its move, at least in part, because the company apparently has been ignoring the agency's bureaucrats for too long. The warning letter notes that the FDA "has not received any communication from 23andMe since May." Yet, the company rolled out a big new marketing campaign for its personal genome service this fall. Frankly, it is not very smart for a company to snub the regulators who have the power to shut it down at their whim. 23andMe's belated response to the FDA acknowledges, "We recognize that we have not met the FDA's expectations regarding timeline and communication regarding our submission." The company diffidently adds,  "Our relationship with the FDA is extremely important to us and we are committed to fully engaging with them to address their concerns."

So what are the FDA's bureaucrats so worried about? Basically that purchasers of 23andMe's personal genome services will do something dangerously stupid in reaction to the information that the tests provide. But will they? As an instance, the FDA letter puts forth a hypothetical in which 23andMe customers could be misled by the results of the company's BRCA breast cancer gene tests. "If the BRCA-related risk assessment for breast or ovarian cancer reports a false positive, it could lead a patient to undergo prophylactic surgery, chemoprevention, intensive screening, or other morbidity-inducing actions, while a false negative could result in a failure to recognize an actual risk that may exist," argues the agency. 

Researchers around the world use the same biochip, the Illumina OmniExpress Plus, that 23andMe uses and find that it provides highly accurate results. Nevertheless, all diagnostic tests produce false positives (false alarms) and false negatives (false all-clears). It bears noting that Myriad Genetics claims that the overall error rate for its more comprehensive BRCA test is less than one percent.

So let's consider more deeply the likely reactions of 23andMe customers to the results of its BRCA test. First, 23andMe flatly states that it tests for only three of the more prevalent BRCA breast and ovarian cancer mutations found generally among Ashkenazi Jewish women. At the very top of its BRCA webpage the company emphasizes that there are hundreds mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes for which it does not test that can cause cancer.

Now let's assume that a 23andMe customer tests positive for one of the BRCA mutations, what are they likely to do next? On the strength of their letter, FDA bureaucrats seem to believe that women with a positive test will immediately go look for surgeons to remove their breasts; start gobbling down tamoxifen pills to ward off cancer; or get more mammograms. Of course, these scenarios are ridiculous. What a customer would do is consult with her physician and most likely get another more comprehensive genetic test. That is exactly what Huffington Post blogger Jill Steinberg did when her 23andMe results came back showing that she carried one of the BRCA mutations. Her subsequent test confirmed the 23andMe finding and she eventually decided to have a double mastectomy.

What if the 23andMe BRCA test missed one of the three mutations in a customer who actually has one of them? In this case, a customer might wrongly assume that she is not at an especially high risk of breast cancer. Let's put the seriousness of such an error in a bit of context. Consider, for example, that the FDA has approved the OraQuick at-home HIV test that produces "about one false negative result out of every 12 tests performed in HIV infected individuals." In this case, a person who wrongly relies on the negative HIV result, like the person with an incorrect BRCA negative result, may be harmed by not seeking appropriate medical care. 

To be sure, the FDA does warn users of the HIV test that it is "important never to use a negative test result to decide on whether to engage in behavior that puts you at risk for HIV infection." In a similar manner, 23andMe carefully explains to its customers, "No matter what your ethnicity or ancestry, it is important to understand that the absence of these mutations does not rule out the possibility that a person may have another genetic variation that increases the risk of these diseases." 

The good news is that a 2013 peer-reviewed study by 23andMe researchers of how customers reacted to their BRCA results found that those who tested negative "did not report inappropriate actions, such as foregoing cancer screening." The study also noted that "all but one of the 32 mutation-positive participants appreciated learning their BRCA mutation status." In addition, the researchers who conducted a 2009 Genetics in Medicine study that analyzed how patients responded to the results of a suite of eight genetic risk susceptibility tests reported, "We found no evidence that those who considered or sought testing were inclined to overestimate the contributions of genetics to common health conditions or to underestimate behavioral risk factors."

The FDA also sketches out a scenario in which 23andMe customers would use their warfarin sensitivity results to "self-manage their treatments through dose changes" producing dangerous blood clots or bleeding incidents. As it happens, my 23andMe results indicate that I have increased sensitivity to the blood-thinning drug. Fortunately, I don't have to use it right now, but I certainly would let my physician know these results in the event that I needed such a treatment.

23andMe tests for the same variants relevant to warfarin sensitivity that the test approved by the FDA does. By the way, stand-alone warfarin sensitivity tests cost between $200 to $400. In any event, I seriously doubt that 23andMe customers who aren't using warfarin will all of a sudden start anti-coagulant therapy for the fun of it. Nor will those currently on warfarin stop listening to their doctors and begin to self-treat by swallowing d-CON pellets.  Furthermore, 23andMe advises at the top of the webpage reporting my warfarin results, "Only a medical professional can determine whether warfarin is the right medication for a particular patient. The information contained in this report should not be used to independently establish a warfarin regimen, or abolish or adjust an existing course of treatment."

So far, nearly 500,000 people have purchased 23andMe's Personal Genome Service. Interestingly, the FDA's warning letter does not mention that the agency has received any substantial customer complaints about the service. Anecdotally, I have recommended 23andMe to many friends and colleagues and have not heard any serious complaints about what they purchased or the information they received.

I have explained elsewhere that the development of all new technologies involve a societal learning process in which some early adopters try it out, explain to others how it works, and find out its flaws—which newer innovators then fix. The way the genetic testing industry will evolve is that the companies that tease out and explain useful information about disease risks and pharmaceutical interactions will be the ones to succeed. Despite the FDA's parade of horrible hypotheticals, the bigger risk is that increased federal regulation will slow down the progress of beneficial genetic testing and treatment innovations.

Finally, New York University law professor Richard Epstein is right when he argues, "The FDA should have to show by clear and convincing evidence that 23andMe leads to the dangerous results that the FDA claims by surveying customers of the firm." Until then, the agency should leave 23andMe and its customers alone.

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.

341 responses to “Let My Genes Go! And Leave 23andMe Alone.

  1. Until then, the agency should leave 23andMe and its customers alone.

    Fat gravitationally challenged chance.

    1. I’m not gravitationally challenged – everything in the universe is attracted to me.

      I am fat though.

      1. everything in the universe is attracted to me

        You’re right.

        I am fat though.

        I’m no one to talk w/ a 29.3 BMI.

        1. Depending on how you partition fat, that may well be neotonous. They don’t call you Baby Face McGee for nothing!

          1. Is it because they don’t call you Baby Face McGee?

        2. I’m no one to talk w/ a 29.3 BMI.

          With a former BMI in excess of 56, I’m proud to be able to hold it down to mere 36.

          1. I ‘fess up to chubbiness myself? BUT, in my defense, did y’all know that Yers Truly is doing his/her VERY best, and serving as a “human carbon sink”? Whenever anyone brings free food to work, or there is a pot-luck of ANY sort, I make DARN sure to follow “fair is fair”? Half for me, half for everyone else! And so I have put MANY carbon atoms WAY into the deep freeze, OUT of them thar atmosphere, and stored into Mine Own Beloved Body, AKA, the Human Carbon Sink? I do it ALL fer U, and The Earth Goddess Gaia, and The Children! And, Yer Welcome!!!

            1. Did you do a lot of acid? You know, back in the hippie days?

              … Hobbit


        3. until I looked at the check which was of $4814, I be certain that…my… mom in-law could actually bringing home money in there spare time on-line.. there aunt started doing this for under 20 months and at present cleared the debts on their appartment and got a top of the range Ford Mustang. why not try this out

          ==============================
          http://www.fb49.com
          ==============================

        4. If I have to figure out what “BMI” means, then the terrorists have won.

          1. It’s the airport in Maryland.

            -jcr

  2. they fear that purchasers of 23andMe’s personal genome services will do something dangerously stupid in reaction to the genetic risk information that the tests provide.

    “Doctor, I just got my genotype tested, and because it says I have an elevated risk of breast cancer, we should lop off my tits and start chemo immediately.”

    “Ummm, ok, that’s not how we do things. Usually we like to confirm that a patient actually HAS a condition before we start treating that condition.”

    Which is why chemo drugs shouldn’t be available over the counter. Aside from the fact that they’re basically poisons, I mean.

    1. We get plenty of poisons over the counter.

      The hard part on chemo drugs is dosing them, since there’s a lot of variables. The manifest inefficacy of OTC chemo would be my argument against.

    2. “Ummm, ok, that’s not how we do things. Usually we like to confirm that a patient actually HAS a condition before we start treating that condition.”

      Aren’t female celebrities and writers getting their tits chopped off all the time for no reason other than the results of a genetic test? It seems like this is a recurring story in women’s media. Seems kind of reckless to me but they are universally hailed as incredibly brave heroines who weren’t taking ANY chances with their health.

      1. If they are so worried, just get bi-monthly exams or something. Cutting of body parts before any disease forms, and it still isn’t a sure thing that it ever will, seems very extreme. But everyone is entitled to make their own risk-reward decision on something like this.

        1. Just so long as I’m not forced to share an insurance pool with these hysterical mutilation-aficionados.

          Angelina Jolie did this, right? Seems like I’ve read scores of stories on this.

          1. I agree with you. This is an elective surgery.

          2. Of course Jolie paid for it herself.

          3. Both Angelina Jolie and Sharon Osborne.

            As a woman who is actually old enough to have to worry about breast cancer (I’m 50), I find this absolutely amazing and agree – I’m glad I’m not in the same insurance pool.

      2. Aren’t female celebrities and writers getting their tits chopped off all the time for no reason other than the results of a genetic test?

        Not this kind of genetic test. They have the much more robust, and FDA vetted, BRCA test. 23andme just has a few snippets of that test through inferred means.

        Seems kind of reckless to me but they are universally hailed as incredibly brave heroines who weren’t taking ANY chances with their health.

        Two weeks ago I had to sit through a gaggle of women bitching about how awful Jolie is for doing this, so I don’t know about universally hailed.

        1. Jolie got new ones rebuilt. She apparently had something like a 90% chance of developing breast cancer. Surgery and losing your proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy magnificent natural boobs had to have really sucked. But I think getting cancer would suck more.

          1. Well, I, personally am unsure that she happened to get a new set just as the old ones were getting really hard to pass off as perfect anymore.

        2. But it’s her body and her choice.

          Don’t they believe in that universal truth ?

    3. Which is why chemo drugs shouldn’t be available over the counter. Aside from the fact that they’re basically poisons, I mean.

      I just think of that as St. Darwin working his selective evolutionary magic.

    4. for the record, when I said “shouldn’t be available over the counter”, SLD applies (“…under the current prescription system…”)

  3. Evidently they fear that purchasers of 23andMe’s personal genome services will do something dangerously stupid in reaction to the genetic risk information that the tests provide.

    You mean like young women having their tits hacked off?

    Hysterical self-mutilation is a self-ownership issue, et c, but I sometimes wonder about the quality of medical advice out there in the wilderness.

    1. Aren’t they doing this right now with zero pathology based on nothing but an FDA-approved genetic test? I really hope their docs are discouraging it and they are paying out of pocket but it seems one of those topics we aren’t supposed to weigh in on (other than praising the courage and sacrifice of the genetically-afflicted brave heroines) lest we be torn to pieces by the pink-clad dancing mobs “for the cure”.

      1. According to Huffpo

        The average American woman has a 12- to 13-percent risk of developing breast cancer, but for women with certain genetic mutations, the risk can range between 50 and 80 percent for breast cancer and between 20 and 50 percent for ovarian cancer.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..64129.html

        Fifty to eighty percent chance is pretty high. I don’t see why people are saying Jolie was acting hysterically.

        1. I think the point is, where is the science behind the P-80 number? It certainly isn’t going to be at HuffPo. I would be skeptical of any sort of certainty in such a new technology. I’m not saying it’s wrong, but I’d be pretty skeptical of such claims, especially when frequent testing could be a better solution. Especially for a wealthy person like Jolie.

          1. Maybe Jolie is nuts. But I doubt it. Her tits are for her business assets. I find it hard to believe she would have had them cut off and rebuilt on the basis of some urban myth or the word of one quack doctor. I am pretty sure that number is correct and she decided to not take the chance.

            I see your point about frequent testing. But it is easy for you or I to say that, we won’t be the ones with cancer. I can completely understand why someone wouldn’t make the decision Jolie did. But, I am not prepared to say she was wrong for doing what she did.

            1. Urban myth, what the fuck are you talking about? Yeah, John, the medical community is right about everything, saturated fat clogs the arteries, salt will kill you dead, or a genetic test that is a few years old can predict with perfect accuracy the statistical odds of someone getting cancer. It was in HuffPo, right? Why should someone be skeptical or do their own research?

              1. WTF are you talking about? Yeah, I get it. You wouldn’t have done what she did. Well good for you. She looked at the medical information and decided differently. It is her body and her life that is at risk. I don’t see how you or anyone else can say she made the wrong decision.

                There is no reason to be skeptical because I see no evidence Jolie is nuts. So for that reason, I will give her the benefit of the doubt and acted on the best information available. Moreover, everything I have ever read, and in places other than HuffPo shows that that genetic test is accurate. It is not like the science is hard. There are thousands of cases of breast cancer. A fucking monkey can go back and see what percentage of the women in those cases had this genetic marker.

                1. WTF are you talking about? Yeah, I get it. You wouldn’t have done what she did. Well good for you. She looked at the medical information and decided differently. It is her body and her life that is at risk. I don’t see how you or anyone else can say she made the wrong decision.

                  Where did I say she couldn’t do whatever she wants with her body. Just thought you’d throw that in for good measure? Where did I even say she made the wrong decision? Why don’t you show me the quote.

                  Reread exactly what I wrote:

                  I think the point is, where is the science behind the P-80 number? It certainly isn’t going to be at HuffPo. I would be skeptical of any sort of certainty in such a new technology. I’m not saying it’s wrong, but I’d be pretty skeptical of such claims, especially when frequent testing could be a better solution. Especially for a wealthy person like Jolie.

                  Now please have that giant strawman you made kick you in the balls for me. If you want to believe in the utter infallibility of medical science despite the fact that they’ve gotten such basic things wrong like whether or not sat fats are healthy go right ahead.

                  1. Now please have that giant strawman you made kick you in the balls for me. If you want to believe in the utter infallibility of medical science despite the fact that they’ve gotten such basic things wrong like whether or not sat fats are healthy go right ahead.

                    Then don’t ever go to the doctor. I don’t know what to tell you. If you don’t believe in medical science that is your business. Jolie apparently does and I tend to agree with her. Is it perfect? No. But it is right more than it is wrong.

                    1. Then don’t ever go to the doctor. I don’t know what to tell you. If you don’t believe in medical science that is your business. Jolie apparently does and I tend to agree with her. Is it perfect? No. But it is right more than it is wrong.

                      And if I’m skeptical of climate change, I suppose that means I don’t believe in the laws of physics either, right? Perhaps, and I’m just spitballing here, perhaps it’s possible to express skepticism of the accuracy of this newish genetic test without throwing out the entire baby of medical science along with the bathwater. I’m saying an intelligent person should do their own research, get a second, third and fourth opinion. Because the conventional medical wisdom has gotten, and is still getting a lot of stuff wrong. And who knows, maybe Jolie did. But considering her shallow, typical left-Hollywood politics, I doubt it.

                2. ” I see no evidence Jolie is nuts. ”

                  1. Angelina Bob Thorton.

                  2. Angelina Bob Thorton used to carry around a vial of his blood.

                  3. She kissed her brother at the Oscars (in a very non-sibling fashion).

                  4, and others: http://www.complex.com/pop-cul…..st-moments

                  1. 3. She kissed her brother at the Oscars (in a very non-sibling fashion).

                    Pft, who hasn’t gotten excited for winning an Academy Award and made out with a sibling?

                3. No evidence she’s nuts? She used to wear a vial of Billy Bob Thorton’s blood around her neck.

            2. Also Jolie is most definitely nuts. Not because of the double mastectomy, just because she’s crazy.

            3. Maybe Jolie is nuts. But I doubt it. Her tits are for her business assets. I find it hard to believe she would have had them cut off and rebuilt on the basis of some urban myth or the word of one quack doctor.

              I would hope you are correct, but given the track record of Hollywood celebs on fad medical treatments, my confidence is low on this point.

              1. Arsen,

                The links SIV gives below indicate she dropped her risk from between 50 to 80% of getting it to only a 10% chance of getting it. I don’t get the Jolie hate on here. I am not sure I would have done that. But I can’t say she is crazy for deciding the other way.

                1. Uh? I was trying to be more general.

                  I hope her analysis (and that of her physician) was as rational as you suggest, but I am not confident of that in view of the Hollywood tendencies I mentioned.

                  As for Angelina Jolie, I hardly know anything about her beyond the headlines I see on the tabloids at the supermarket checkout. Aside from my generalized distate for Hollywood types, I have no particular animus for her.

        2. It isn’t like she reduced her chances to zero. Is the survival rate for prophylactic mastectomies that much greater than aggressive treatment for early-detected cancer? Of that 80% how many develop cancer at an advanced age?

          There is a lot of time to get hit by buses, fall down wells, have strokes, heart attacks, develop other cancers etc.

          1. I think she reduced her breast cancer risk to zero.

            1. I’m no oncologist but I kinda doubt that.
              Particularly if you count the cancers that metastasizing breast cancer turns in to.

              1. There would have to have been a tumor for it to have metastasized.

              2. Actually cancers that develop in different parts of the body are different cancers. It took decades to figure this out. For a long time, treatment would work on some cases of “breast cancer” or “lung cancer” and not on others. What doctors eventually found out is the type of cancer you have is determined by where it originates in your body. So if your cancer starts in your breast and spreads to your lungs, that “lung cancer” is not the same cancer as cancer that actually starts in your lungs.

                So, if you have your breasts removed, “breast cancer” is not going to develop in your body. You may get some other form of cancer that spreads to your new fake breasts. But you won’t get breast cancer.

              1. So she dropped her risk from between 50 to 80 to 10%. That seems like a pretty rational decision to me.

                1. It doesn’t work that way. Post prophylactic mastectomy cancer case data is based on a pool full of women, many of whom were at low risk anyways.

                  1. So what SIV? Maybe Jolie’s doctors are quacks who sold her a treatment that didn’t make any difference. I don’t know and neither do you. But I seriously doubt that. I don’t understand why you automatically assume she made the wrong decision when you know nothing about her or her doctor or actual health. I am going to go out on a limb here and say Jolie knows more about the risks and her own health than you do and thus her decision carries a lot more weight than your or my opinion.

                    1. Angelina Jolie isn’t the only woman undergoing prophylactic mastectomy.
                      In my quoted link above it says the pool of women who have had the procedure includes many at low risk.

                      These are healthy people opting to undergo a risky procedure to remove healthy tissue based on nothing more (at best) than genetic test results and/or family history.

                    2. based on nothing more (at best) than genetic test results and/or family history.

                      Which tend to be extremely good predictors of cancer. If I had her family history and genetics, I could see doing what she did.

                2. Correct. Women with the BRCA mutation are still very likely to die from breast cancer. Prophylactic mastectomy and yearly breast MRIs reduce the likelihood from near certainty to manageable.

                  I used to work in breast cancer screening, and I was amazed that Jolie waited so long to get the surgery. It was unquestionably the right choice. And for those of you concerned about the cost, even a top quality reconstruction and yearly MRIs are relatively cheap compared to any breast cancer treatment at all. Not that I’m advocating this, but if all BRCA women got reconstructions at 30, the cost of treatment would be much lower.

                  But then we’d have fewer Jewish boobs.

            2. I think she reduced her breast cancer risk to zero.

              Not quite, mammary tissue isn’t just in the breast, the same tissue that is prone to cancer can be found in a large area on the chest. My understanding is she significantly diminished her chances of developing a tumor because there’s less of that particular tissue to betray her, but she hasn’t zeroed it out.

              1. Jesse,

                She clearly reduced it significantly and decided that the reduction in risk was worth the procedure. That sounds like a perfectly rational decision to me. I don’t see why SIV and Snark think it was such a bad decision.

                1. I think her decision was radical, Snark is right to point out that this is a bit of technology we’re still figuring out, but I she also has an extensive family history of breast and ovarian cancer to back up the findings. If I had that extensive a history of a specific type of cancer I’d have doctors hull that shit out and would make a point of not passing on those genes (which she seems to be working on by adopting).

        3. Life long smokers have an 8 percent risk of developing lung cancer. So the answers are obvious:

          1. Women should be restricted to individuals of 18 years or older.
          2. Advertising women on TV or at sporting events should be banned.
          3. Any advertising that appeals to the young should be good for a fine.
          4. ID should be required for all purchases.
          5. A sin tax should be levied to pay for the health care costs of women. This can be used for educational outreach and primary schooling also.
          6. Tax stamps. Not tramps stamps. Tax stamps. And penalties for smuggling women across state lines.

          1. @ #6 – I don’t think the Mann Act has been overruled or repealed yet.

            1. True, but it doesn’t provide for tax stamps to signify that, while women are immoral by cancer rates, the appropriate indulgences have been paid into the coffers of the receiving State.

  4. Great Otherwise enabled minds….

  5. We get plenty of poisons over the counter.

    But no laudanum.

    I haz a sad.

    1. Amen, suh. I would deathly love a tincture of laudanum now and again.

  6. This is why I’m surprised there’s been no major crackdown on Bitcoin yet. I can only assume it’s still fly too low on the radar, or perhaps its unusual nature is confusing the dimwitted regulatrons.

    1. Haven’t you heard. All of the government’s best IT people are working on the Healthcare.gov website. It’ll have to wait, but then they’ll come down like a ton of bricks.

  7. So what are the FDA’s bureaucrats so worried about? Basically that purchasers of 23andMe’s personal genome services will do something dangerously stupid in reaction to the information that the tests provide. But will they?

    Hypochondriacs are going to freak out no matter what they do. I think in this case a doctor could simply refuse to perform a medically unnecessary procedure.

    So I doubt that many people who aren’t mentally ill will be hacking off cancer-ridden body parts.

    1. I hope you meant ‘hacking off cancer-free body parts’, because it’s a sane response to divest yourself of a cancer-ridden one.

      1. Yes.

    2. And even if these people do get these procedures, it is still their body and their choice. Why should we all be punished for the small amount of people who will take these tests as gospel and get procedures done before any disease exists?

      1. There’s a reason this argument falls flat with busybodies and statists, the same reason they brook no love for freedom of association or conscience: they attach greater importance to instances of exploitation, real or imagined, than they do personal sovereignty. In their eyes, this hypothetical customer isn’t an idiot but a victim of the genome-profiling industry (BIG GENOME!). They’re protecting him from exploitation, not from his own idiocy.

        That such questionable protections militate actual coercion and exploitation (“don’t disclose this information or we’ll fine/arrest you”) doesn’t account for much, in their books. The naivety is astounding.

        1. We’ve had home pregnancy kits for decades. Suppose someone got a positive reading and killed herself? Or a negative reading for that matter. Much more likely than someone mutilating herself over a genetic test.

          1. Except that home pregnancy kits have to get FDA approval.

            1. Even the ones from the Dollar store?

    3. The reality is they aren’t worried about jack shit. They just want to extend their power and increase their budget like any little unelected bureaucrat.

  8. I doubt that many people who aren’t mentally ill will be hacking off cancer-ridden body parts.

    I think it’s a problem (hardly widespread) of people hacking off NON-cancerous body parts based on some perceived inevitability of the onset of cancer.

    1. And suppose a man got a result that showed he had a gene that predicted he had a 90% chance of developing prostate cancer. Who do you suppose would go to a doctor and get their balls removed?

      1. I’m no eapert but if my doc suggested I have my balls removed to prevent prostate cancer,I would see another doctor.Or maybe I would never trust doctors again.

  9. I’m thinking of protesting reason for making that poor Ron Bailey work the Friday after Thanksgiving!! POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

    1. That depends, is he salaried, or paid by the piece?

    2. The interns are going to regurg one of Nick’s Daily Beast pieces to give the impression he’s working too. But that shit aint fooling nobody.

    3. I just noticed that Reason “24/7” hasn’t been updated since Wednesday.

      1. It doesn’t say 24/7/365.

        1. You mean 24/7/365.256363004

        2. 24/7/52 to be correct. That does allow for one day off per year, two every fourth.

          reason appears to be treating the interns better than the orphans. Someone needs to look into that.

  10. making that poor Ron Bailey work the Friday after Thanksgiving!!

    He’s like reason‘s air traffic controller.

    1. I think of him more like reason‘s Walmart greeter.

      1. Has zRon been following you to your car shrieking you have to show him a receipt for your stuff?

      2. So he’s either really old or slightly retarded?

        1. Why can’t he be both?

          1. It wasn’t an XOR.

        2. Or a one legged biker.

  11. White people: Their Imaginations are RACIST

    It is difficult to imagine benevolent geniuses as black, it seems, but quite easy to imagine villains as black. This is telling, isn’t it? Telling that the white imagination, when provided in a book with descriptions of a “good guy” — intelligent, valuable, kind, even gentle — imagines that character as white (like themselves) but when provided with descriptions of a villain, a killer, a dangerous maniac… imagines that character as a black man.
    […]
    As white people, we are used to representations of ourselves crowding the covers of magazines, crowning the posters of newly released films. The good guys are white, we have learned, after eons of our faces being plastered under cowboy hats and in impeccable Bond suits. White men are Superman, we have learned. White men are Ethan Hunt and Neo and white men are hobbits. Bad men, we have learned, are black. They’re gang bangers and thugs and talk loud and sometimes deliver funny lines where we laugh at their Otherness.

    Black men aren’t heroes, we learn. Our imagination and subconscious are so saturated with white supremacist notions of goodness, beauty, and heroism, that when confronted head-on with an image of a black man who is brilliant and kind and normal and who saves the day, we transform into robotic versions of ourselves: Does… not… compute. Hero… must be… white.

    1. Jonah Goldberg nailed this shit a few years ago. He said something to the effect of, racist conservatives like him go to a movie and see hideous, evil creatures and go “cool Orcs”. Enlightened Progressives go to the same movie, see the same creatures and immediately think “those are black people”.

    2. I don’t click HuffPo links – do they claim to have studies to back up their wild assertions about what appears in the minds of others?

      I don’t know what books they’re reading, but the books I read actually describe what the characters look like, and I try to use that as my mental template for the character. Perhaps their authors are hacks who can’t handle description?

      1. Black men are never heroes? That will come as a hell of a surprise to Denzel Washington to learn he is apparently not black.

        1. I guess he didn’t fit their narrative, so they ignored him.

        2. I didn’t think Will Smith was evil until I saw ‘Wild Wild West’.

      2. She is Olivia Cole: “Poet, author, and activist”.

        And she’s talking about the Hunger Games. In the movie black actor Jeffrey Wright plays one of the good guys, a genius that comes up with an important plan to defeat the bad guys.

        Now I’ve not read the books, so I don’t know if the author describes him in detail, but she alleges that he was not described as black in the books and so racist white people, of course, would react with mild surprise at the casting of a black actor. Her evidence for all of this? Twitter.

        1. So no studies, just her assertions that “Ya’ll are racists at heart”?

        2. Her evidence for all of this? Twitter.

          I can buy into the idea that Twitter users are racists.

        3. “She is Olivia Cole: “Poet, author, and activist”.”

          She left out self-absorbed twit. She’s my daughters age. I see that superior than thou shit all the time from that age group. Look at how tolerant and cool we are. Everyone else is a homophobic, racist, women rapist. They’re clueless and not worth your consideration.

    3. As white people, we are used to representations of ourselves

      Or, that’s JUST HOW IMAGINATION WORKS. It’s an inventive process that begins WITH YOU. Especially for thoughts where you’re the central character, albeit possibly altered in form.

      1. Remember when you were a kid Wylie and you imagined being an NFL quarterback or famous musician or international spy or whatever it was that you dreamed of being? Well the only reason the person in those fantasies looked like you and was white instead of being black or brown is because you are a racist.

        1. Funny thing is, looking back, I don’t recall any future aspirations.

          I imagined stuff like maps of fantasy worlds, zelda style content in super mario world styled cartography. I imagined super hero battles, since that was cheaper than buying comics.

          The closest my imagination ever got to aspirations was the 1st time I read the Dune series and wanted to be God Emperor. Which was, obviously, never a very serious aspiration.

          Still, anytime I do imagine people, they tend to be white. Such a damn racist.

          1. And you probably envisioned yourself as a white human male, instead of the human-sandworm hybrid like the real God Emperor. You disgusting speciesist.

            1. I wanted to be Shaft

      2. Seriously. I started working on a novel this month, and in the planning, I went, “Why am I assuming my protagonist is white?”

        So, I made him black. And he’s a good guy, though kind of a dick (but in a Holmesian kind of way). See, my imagination? Not racist, you cunt.

        1. But your protag is “kind of a dick”. So – RACIST.

    4. I think we should let the Magic Negros fight this one out.

      1. Great. Thanks for this.

    5. Um, what? Isn’t every movie serial killer white? Every EEEEVIL corporate CEO? Every corrupt government official? Every mad scientist? Has this idiot ever even watched a movie?

      1. To be fair, most serial killers are white in real life.

        1. I know, but it doesn’t matter. If her argument was true, then most movies and books wouldn’t depict serial killers as white.

          1. All I know is that every gang of thugs is a vibrant multicultural mixture of Whites, Blacks, Hispanics and the occasional Asian.

            1. Just like in real life.

              Right?

              1. The Warriors was a documentary.

              1. Rainbow biker punk bloods:)

    6. These people are not worth your time. They have column inches to fill and the vapid art of grievance politicking is rote and formulaic. Seriously, this is paint-by-numbers drivel, which is useful in their line of work since their template is completely monochromatic. Nuance and subtlety are traits they require of their scant data, not their writing craft.

    7. It is difficult to imagine benevolent geniuses as black

      The black genius in T2 sacrificed himself trying to save the human race.

      1. And kept T3 from being made?

        FAIL!

      2. The computer geek in Die Hard was black. He wasn’t “benevolent” but he was still a genius.

    8. I find this strange as the stereotypical image of a serial killer is almost always a middle-aged white guy. Same with pedophile.

      Look at popular fiction. There isn’t a serial killer movie out there of any recognition that isn’t about a middle-aged white man.

      1. If you wanted to, you could explain this with racism (if you’re that sort of twit, or “activist”).

        You see, when hollywood does deign to make a white person the evil antagonist they portray them not as monosyllabic street thugs, but rather as almost supernaturally intelligent serial killers that are able to outwit most law enforcement. Hell, they may even write in a sympathy generating backstory for our pale villain.

        1. Yes, I do see that the white serial killer is generally devilishly clever. Unless he is from the South, in which case, the reason he has evaded law enforcement is because he lives in a remote cabin deep in Appalachia, or a swamp or something.

          Still, the article isn’t about how people assume white guys are cleverer, it’s about how they assume black people are eviler.

          It would make more sense if you argued that white evil guys tend to be serial killers or corporate CEOs or mad scientists, but black evil people tend to be street thugs and gangster.

          Except when they are on The Wire, like Stringer Bell.

          1. You’re right, but I’m trying to imagine what one of these HuffPo “activists ” would argue. In other words, blind emotion without the aid of reason.

    9. You say this cat called Shaft is a bad moth…..” “Shut your mouth!”

  12. It is difficult to imagine benevolent geniuses as black, it seems, but quite easy to imagine villains as black.

    That explains why Morgan Freeman has such a hard time getting work.

    1. He did play all of those parts where he was a murderous villain. This woman totally explains why Freeman is one of the most feared and hated men in Hollywood. If the country wasn’t so damned racist, Freeman would be beloved and be practically like everyone’s fantasy grandfather or uncle.

    2. The poor poor man, will he have to narrate about Penguins forever?

    3. Freeman is never the protagonist hero, but the Magic Negro, and as such, just another sign of White oppression.

      1. Wasn’t he the lead detective in Kiss the Girls and the hero/protagonist?

        1. Never saw it. I’m sure it’s because I’m racist.

      2. “Magic Negro”

        Well to be fair, he did play God.

    4. She actually mentions Morgan Freeman:

      Morgan Freeman. Who has overwhelmingly portrayed “good” characters in his career as an actor. He even played God once, if memory serves. What is it, then, that causes the white imagination to provide his face as a stand-in for what they imagine as a ruthless child killer in a fictional world?

      His blackness. And only that.

      I don’t know, I don’t think I’ve ever imagined Freeman as a ruthless child killer. Although he did (spoiler alert!) kidnap a girl in that one movie.

      1. Who is the ruthless child killer? God? Are these people capable of having a single coherent thought?

        1. It sounds like she’s saying all black people must look alike to white people.

          Because even though most people wouldn’t think of Freeman as a killer, if we picture Samuel L. Jackson as a villain we might as well be picturing Morgan Freeman as a killer. Because they are both black.

          That’s the best I can do because you’re right, it is totally incoherent.

          1. Like nearly everything Progs write, this piece is the total opposite of reality. The fact is that black people do get a short shrift in movies. But it is not because America is the RACIST. It is because Hollywood is made up of the worst sort of Progs who think every black character must either be a vehicle for showing some larger issue about how racist America is or be some idealized magic Negro that is a vehicle for showing racist America that black people are not what they think they are.

            There are so few fully realized black characters in movies because such characters do not fit the narratives the Progs who write movies are pushing.

            1. Progressives basically are still living in the ’60s. Really. They think it’s still the civil rights movement and time to burn bras and draft cards and protest the war.

              There’s all these boomers out there for whom the ’60s was the high point of their lives, and they’re basically still there. They marches in the civil rights movement and the burned their bras and their draft cards, and protested the war. And they are still reliving those experiences. Still trying to recapture that era.

              Fuck, that’s been obvious enough for 24 years hasn’t it? It was pretty obvious in 1989, when they were all celebrating the 20th anniversary of Woodstock. It’s been non-stop perpetual efforts to relive the 60s my entire goddamn life.

      2. What is it, then, that causes the white imagination to provide his face as a stand-in for what they imagine as a ruthless child killer in a fictional world?

        I also don’t click on HuffPo links, so maybe I’m ignoring something when I ask: Who imagines Freeman as a child killer!? Is the author just making this shit up and saying it is true for “the white imagination” the world over?

        Is it projection?

        1. I third this.

          When the hell did Freeman play a vicious child-killer?
          I don’t remember that.

      3. Saw him interviewed once; seemed pretty straightforward and not real full of himself.
        The dimbulb interviewer made a comment about him playing god in whatever movie and gushed ‘How do you prepare for such a part?’, expecting some spiritual BS I’m sure.
        He said: “Read the script.”

        1. I am pretty sure this story is true and not an urban myth, though I have never seen Freeman confirm it.

          When he met Freeman, instead of asking for an autograph he asked him to record a message for him on his voicemail.

          Freeman obliged and the message goes like this, “This is actor Morgan Freeman, Barnz is away from his phone right now but leave a message and he will call you back, I hope…I hope.”

          http://bleacherreport.com/arti…..l-messages

          If that is true, Freeman sounds like a great guy.

        2. Morgan Freeman on race. Pretty much individualism and color blindness. The strategy that a lot of lefties insist is the most racist of them all.

          1. Is it possible he’s some kind of crazy-ass libertarian or something?

            1. (or is he an Obama-Aid drinker?)

            2. No. He is solidly liberal.

              1. Many liberals would be perfectly good libertarians if they could just get over their hatred and fear of the free market.

                1. Not unless they also give up their need to control everyone around them.

                  1. ^^^Thi1s

                  2. Well the nanny-statism occurs on both sides of the aisle.

                    Republicans want to keep you from buying booze and drugs for your own good. Democrats want to keep you from smoking cigarettes and eating trans-fats.

                    Also, I’ve known many liberals who were quite good on nanny-state/personal freedom issues. And then they get fucked in the head when you talk about free trade. They’re happy to let you put whatever you want in your body, but want to control who you can purchase shoes from.

                2. And their love of government…

            3. Is it possible he’s some kind of crazy-ass libertarian or something?

              I wish I could tell you that Morgan Freeman fought the good fight, and he’s a closet libertarian. I wish I could tell you that, but politics is no fairy-tale world.

  13. Morgan Freeman played a bad guy in Nurse Betty, but he was hardly the personification of unalloyed evil.

    1. IIRC, he was a villain in “Lucky Number Slevin” and “Hard Rain”.

      1. It’s almost like he’s a working professional actor.

  14. when confronted head-on with an image of a black man who is brilliant and kind and normal and who saves the day

    Gosh, I wonder whose face was floating like a luminous cloud of desire above her keyboard when she expelled that glimmering jewel-like Freudian brainfart?

  15. Do you think reason is gonna do another webathon? Cause I’m trying to put together some choice phrasing for the ticker at the top of the page (as, I’m bored at work today. The motion-sensor lights keep shutting off).

    1. I should’ve gone to work today. I’d be doing the same thing I’m doing at home except for getting my laundry done.

      Of course I would’ve had to drive past two major malls, which sounded really painful on Black Friday.

      1. If my commute took me anywhere near a major shopping area, I wouldn’t have driven (my treat to myself for working the Day After is driving to work instead of shivering on a Metro platform).

  16. So, not as exciting as Baby Reason, but I made my first ever Thanksgiving Turkey yesterday. It went well. I have a ton of leftovers.

    1. So, not as exciting as Baby Reason…

      You’re right. Babies are much better than turkeys.

      For one thing, they don’t get all dried out after just a few days in the fridge.

      1. Dead babies do. That’s why you should freeze them if you’re not serving them immediately.

        1. Look pal, this ain’t my first rodeo; I know how to prepare some goddamn baby. I’m no diletante who’s never roasted a kid before.

          I’m a pro.

    2. Turkey bacon club sandwiches, turkey salad sandwiches, turkey soup. It’s all good.

  17. Waiting in Line 3D: The ultimate boring video game?

    1. It doesn’t look as bad as Desert Bus

    2. South Park did it.

  18. 10 things you didn’t know about Dirty Dancing

    1. 10 things I could live without knowing…

      But #10, I think O’Brien was being an ironic douche.

      1. Which would be lost on anyone who thought Dirty Dancing was a good movie.

    2. Wait a minute – you guys watched that? IIRC my ex rented it one evening and I took it as a good time for a nap. Of course I don’t remember if it was “Dirty Dancing” or “Ghost” because I was asleep. There probably aren’t 10 things I actually do know about that movie. Let’s see..

      1. Patrick Swayze
      2. Dancing
      3. Some chick
      4. ….

    3. Hah. I knew Swayze recorded “She’s Like The Wind.” In retaliation, God gave him the cancer and killed him.

  19. 5 Reesons English Languj Makes No Sens

    Figured our resident Brave Octoroon would enjoy this one.

    1. No shyte. After a couple decades working in all three languages I firmly hold that English is about as difficult to learn to read and write properly as Chinese, although Japanese is at least one level harder. Despite only having 26 letters the random and arbitrary “rules” for spelling English make it necessary to learn spelling mostly by rote memorization.

      By contrast, Spanish or German are spelled exactly as they are pronounced. An illiterate Spanish speaker can be taught to read in a matter of weeks.

    2. Well, yeah, that’s what happens when a language develops in a small island that gets constantly invaded by other cultures with their own langauge.

      1. Yup, Japan had the same problem and the written system they came up with is even worse than what English speakers have to deal with. Two phonetic systems with 46 characters (plus two archaic ones) – with only a few bizarre exceptional pronunciations, and something like 50,000 unique characters (but only about 2,000 needed for common literacy) adopted from a language with a completely different pronunciation system (Chinese) for which pronunciation requires rote memorization. There are some general pronunciation guidelines but each character usually has two or three alternative pronunciations and in some cases a combination of characters produces a unique pronunciation for the set.

  20. Michael Bolton is doing Honda ads now?
    poor guy *snicker*

    1. How did you think such a No Talent Assclown would end up?

      Speaking of which, I think they got Erik Estrada to do some ads a few years ago.

  21. Does honey have a shelf life?

    1. It does, Honey can develop salmonella.

      They recommend not giving to very young children because of this.

      But I don’t know how long.

      1. Made me go look.

        Honey can carry botulism, not salmonella. Only harmful to infants.

        The shelf life for sealed honey is almost indef, but once opened, the recommend about 2 years.

        1. thanks. mine isn’t nearly that old

        2. Really?? Haven’t they found honey in jars in ancient Egyptian tombs and reconstituted it? I thought honey, open or not, lasted pretty much forever.

  22. I’ve been out. Has anyone heard from sloop or Banjos since yesterday?

  23. 700 career points now for Sidney Crosby!
    Suck it, haters.

      1. Sid The Bitch

        1. That’s just your envy talking.

  24. Holy fuck, this is the funniest thing I have ever seen.

    The New York Times asks readers to comment about their Black Friday. Unsurprisingly, it turns into a circle jerk in which Times commenters try to one up each other in how much they totally hate capitalism.

    WaltNew YorkNYT Pick
    To me it means getting in the car with my spouse and adult daughters and heading to Cape May…Birding! None of us buy into this nonsensical consumer binge day.

    He typed with one hand.

    Paul
    IMHO Black Friday is the high holy day for the state religion of over-consumption. And it seemingly permeates our entire culture and every socioeconomic level at least for this one day. When will we learn that more “stuff” can’t make us happy? I plan to stay away from the stores Friday. The savings are not irresistible to me at all – they only serve to remind me that the corporate mark-up the rest of the time is shameful. If only we could spend the day serving our neighbors, or wait a day and perhaps spend a little something in our local communities on Small Business Saturday. Or simply revel in being with our loved ones continuing for a second day to reflect on what we already have to be thankful for instead – their presence in our lives. Isn’t that the most important thing of all over this and every holiday season?

    Fuck you Paul. No one asked you.

    1. AvocatsWANYT Pick
      Black Friday means absolutely nothing to me, except to take a moment to despair of what Christmas has become. I’m not religious, but the season itself has always been important. Seeing people kill each other over parking spots and consumer electronics of dubious value is disturbing.

      This year’s outbreak has also dampened my interest in any gift buying. I’m helping some causes that I believe in. Otherwise, I’m staying home and saving my sanity and my money.

      Bonus points for mentioning his ’causes.’

      HippiChickiColoradoNYT Pick
      I boycott it. Especially now that business are starting to open on Thanksgiving. The Thanksgiving break has morphed from a time of family and gratitude for what we have into people fighting over parking spaces and electronics, camping out in the cold to buy more material things, and forcing already employees to come in on what was used to be one of the only holidays they had off.

      I like that, to progressives, Thanksgiving reminds them of the time the White Man committed genocide against the noble native peoples…unless an evil business decides to stay open on Thanksgiving. Then Thanksgiving is all about family and gratitude.

      1. Black Friday is a day to protest Black Friday at Walmart and by extension all the other low-wage places selling imported junk and garbage food to people who don’t need any of it. We will protest to demonstrate the economic devastation they have wrought with their sub-poverty wages and their cheap, job killing imported stock. Their poverty wages and prices cost taxpayers between $400,000 and $2,000,000 per store per year in social services and only god knows how much in other forms of corporate welfare.
        Walmart is only the beginning. Unbridled greed and insensitivity has a price and reckoning is coming, faster and harder all of the time. Revolution is building and cannot be stopped.

        Black Friday: Prelude to the revolution.

        1. I wonder how many of those anti-consumerism rants were typed out on expensive apple products.

        2. When the revolution gets here, this guy won’t hear it, because his ass cheeks are blocking the sound.

          1. But maybe he will see it if he can spread his navel open wide enough.

        3. It’s good for jobs in China. Why do you hate Chinese people, HippiChicki?

        4. Only $2M a year? That’s a rounding error where I work.

        5. I saved over $700 yesterday. Well worth the effort, which really wasn’t anything outrageous.

      2. To be fair, those might be different progressives. I don’t think they’ve achieved complete hive mind yet.

      3. “This year’s outbreak has also dampened my interest in any gift buying. I’m helping some causes that I believe in. Otherwise, I’m staying home and saving my sanity and my money.”

        And also because he’s a cheapskate.

      4. Otherwise, I’m staying home and saving … my money.

        Dangerous hoarder!!

  25. NFL won’t air gun company commercial at super bowl.

    It’s their right, but it’s my right to call ’em commie douchebags over it (and the fact that most of the owners extract money from taxpayers for their little corporate playgrounds).

    1. FOX says they could not accept the commercial “due to the rules of the NFL itself” regarding firearm-related businesses.

      The NFL’s prohibited advertising categories include, but are not limited to, “contraceptives,” “fireworks,” “distilled spirits and flavored malt beverages,” “tobacco,” and “firearms, ammunition, or other weapons.”

      That does it, I’m boycotting the NFL.

      1. So the NFL will advertise boner pills but not condoms?

        1. They’ll let former gang members own part of an NFL team, but not Rush Limbaugh.

        2. Beer commercials out the ass, but hard liquor is baaaaaad!

          And so much for knowing your audience. Do you suppose there are ANY anti-gunners watching teh fooozball?

          If I wanted this kinda gayness I’d watch soccer.

    1. Black Friday is, without a doubt, a fairly horrid phenomenon in the U.S. (now extended into Canada), wherein consumer culture, corporate greed and anti-labour practices collide. The holiday tradition of over-consumption, beginning on Black Friday and ending at Boxing Day Week in a mountain of things and post-holiday depression, led Adbusters to attach itself to the promotion of “Buy Nothing Day,” which takes place the day after American Thanksgiving.

      Have you noticed that all of these anti-consumerist liberals talk about how depressed they are throughout the holidays? It really does seem like they’re just sad pathetic people who project their miserable lives onto the rest of society.

      1. “More than two dozen people were arrested in protests at California Wal-Mart stores during the Black Friday shopping surge.”

        From other sources, it looks like 2-3 locations.
        Figure easily 5,000 customers at each location and it’s easy to see who the press favors with coverage.

      2. They are not satisfied with projection – by gawd they will MAKE everyone else be as miserable as they are!

        1. Ha! To do that it would be necessary for me to care. I honestly couldn’t tell you in which decade my last, feeble inclination to give any serious weight to a lefty idea wimpered its way on to oblivion. Maybe the 80’s.

          If I were in the US right now and had any of these blinkered fools in my social circle I would invite them to come by and clean the guns that I had gone shooting with that day.

          Ef ’em and the social justice pony they rode in on.

  26. Fuckin YINZERS The Conflict Kitchen in Pittsburgh serves its American customers delicious meals with a side of political awareness

    1. Park Slope is pissed they didn’t think of it first.

  27. Nice little interview with legendary broadcaster Vin Scully, 2014 Grand Marshal of the Tournament of Roses Parade

    1. The only man alive who can make baseball interesting.

  28. German cop kills and dismembers voluntary victim

    A German police officer has been arrested on suspicion of killing and chopping up a man he met on the Internet who had long fantasized about being killed and eaten, authorities said Friday.

    The handwriting and document analysis specialist was arrested on Wednesday at his workplace, the Criminal Technical Institute in the eastern city of Dresden, authorities said. He told investigators that he fatally stabbed the victim in the throat on Nov. 4, hours after the two met in person for the first time.

    The 55-year-old said he then chopped up the body into multiple pieces. The suspect pointed officers to a number of places around his property, south of Dresden, where he had buried the remains, city police chief Dieter Kroll said at a televised news conference.

    The killing happened about a month after the pair first met in an Internet chat room, police said. The 59-year-old victim, whose name wasn’t released, traveled about 400 kilometers (250 miles) by bus from Hannover to the meeting.

    Witnesses told officers that “the missing man had fantasized since his youth about being killed and eaten by another person,” Kroll said.

    There is no indication at this point that the suspect ate body parts, and the suspect denied having done so, prosecutor Lorenz Haase said.

    1. That’s just eatin’ me up, I dunno WHUT ta says!!!

      1. …but at least it helps me out ta know he was a LEO, jus’ a-lookin’ out fer the PUBIC GOOD, ya know…

    2. What a dick. Just eat the guy if you’re going to invite him over knowing he wants to be eaten.

      1. ^^THIS

        Geez, some people. RUDE.

    3. If Germany isn’t careful, they’re going to develop a reputation.

    4. Again? How many Germans harbor a cannibalism victim fantasy?

      1. I knew I had heard that story before. Yeah, that’s sad. That’s what all that pure blood shit will get you.

    5. Too bad the guy didn’t wait a few more years. By then, we’ll be able to culture steaks from your own cells, or the cells of any person or animal you want: Nobody harmed in the making of this meal. How much would the poor man’s mind have been blown, had he been able to butcher and eat steaks based on his own flesh? And he still would have been alive and completely intact, to enjoy it! It’s a grisly image to my mind, on a par with Hannibal Lector scooping out pieces of Ray Liotta’s gray matter for dinner while chatting with him. But it is coming.

  29. From the comments on the Chron article on 23andMe:

    la_blues
    Rank 23
    “@talk0underworld
    This is serving the public, by making sure they aren’t spending money on tests that aren’t useful to anyone.”

    Now, this is obviously not true. If the government were trying to save ‘the people’ money by cutting off worthless information, there’s no way this guy would ever be allowed to own a computer.

    1. Why does anyone need information about 23 chromosomes?

      1. And why does that man need a computer?
        He could live in communal bliss and scratch his messages on the cell wall.

  30. College football player spends 4 days locked up in jail after cops mistook him for someone with a warrant

    Jawon Johnson was arrested after being pulled over for a traffic violation because police said there was a federal warrant out for a man with an almost identical name and the same birth date. Even when it was established that Johnson was not the man with the warrant, the other guy’s first name is Jawan, it took three days for him to be released.

    “They arrested me and took me back to the station and showed me a picture of who the guy actually was,” Johnson told The Sun. “It wasn’t me, but they said they still had to hold me until the marshals came and got me.”

    David Lutz, a deputy marshal and friend of the family, transported Johnson from Havre de Grace to Baltimore. Even though he knew Jawon, he had to keep him handcuffed the whole time.

    “He’s an upstanding young citizen,” Lutz told The Sun. But he added: “Even if we trust the person or believe their story, you have to treat everybody the same.”

    When Johnson finally was released, his family was there to greet him.

    “As long as I’m out, I’m perfectly fine,” he said. “I’m happy to see my family. I just want to enjoy the rest of my vacation at home.”

    Um, no harm no foul?

    1. Even though he knew Jawon, he had to keep him handcuffed the whole time.

      “He’s an upstanding young citizen,” Lutz told The Sun. But he added: “Even if we trust the person or believe their story, you have to treat everybody the same.”

      Cuz, it’s da law.

      1. Look, they can’t be seen to give anyone preferential treatments.

        Except their brothers in blue, because they’re above suspicion.

    2. He was a real gentleman. But I’m not.

      Who cares if hes an upstanding citizen or not? The relevant point is he ain’t the guy they’re looking for, so fuck their excyses about confusing Tuttle with Buttle, or ehatever the fuck it is. Give the cops 39 lashes for every day they kept a fucking innocent man ib prison.

    3. “It wasn’t me, but they said they still had to hold me until the marshals came and got me.”

      No, they did not have to do any such thing.

      The instant they figured out he was the wrong guy they could have let him go.

      1. This sort of story drives me crazy. Its worse with prisoners that have had their convictions voided for whatever reason – yeah we know that, technically, the court found you innocent, but we’re going to hold you here in prison for a few more weeks since there are *procedures* to go through.

        Fuck that – if he’s innocent then let him go. Anything else is, at best, kidnapping.

  31. So the day after Thanksgiving isn’t a work day at Reason?

    The management’s gone soft.

    1. You can squeeze more work out of orphans when they’re at the end of their useful life if you sprinkle a little hope into their lives and then take it away. Believe you me, come Saturday morning the article mines will be humming with the weeping and gnashing of orphan teeth as they extract slowly chip articles out of the bedrock.

      1. I suppose some sacrifices must be made for the sake of future productivity. But I’d still reduce their rations.

        1. I’d still reduce their rations.

          Feeding your orphans makes them weak and lazy. I let them rent cock-fighting spurs with the wooden nickles I “pay” them and they can go hunt their own food, or competitors’ orphan labor force.

          1. Feeding your orphans makes them weak and lazy.

            Oh, I agree. I meant only for the period they weren’t working.

            A. They won’t be needing those extra calories while they’re not producing.

            And

            B. They won’t have the energy to look for better “employment” during their time off.

          2. I misread that as Not feeding… I’m an idiot…fucked up a perfectly good orphan thread.

            1. Blame one of the orphans and beat him senseless – you’ll feel a lot better.

  32. We seem to be arguing that the federal government should let us be doing a lot of things we can’t.

  33. Let me be clear. If you want to keep your DNA tests, you can keep your DNA tests. Period.

  34. Catholic group attacks Rush Limbaugh for disagreeing with the Pope.

    So…left-wing atheists should be rallying to Limbaugh’s defense any day now right? After all, these are people who, rightfully enough, don’t think religious figures should be interjecting themselves into policy discussions.

    I eagerly await the Freedom from Religion Foundation’s pro-Limbaugh statement that they should be releasing soon.

    1. Fuck this man! If this guy actually gave one shit about the poor he’d trade in his skydaddy and be on his knees singing the praises of capitalism.

      Of course, to whom would the church sell their wares if everyone in this world were prosperous? A pope without the poor is like Al Sharpton without racism.

      1. The Vhurch was fighting socialism and communism since before Gillespie was in leather diapers.

        1. I grew up readin intellectuals who said the Church’s leaders were capitalist stooges with irrational fears against socialism and communism. Y’all need to get some perspective.

      2. This board is rife with Protestants, I suppose.

        My reaction, as a raised Catholic, still-goes-to-Church for the ritual but uses condoms and personally supports abortion type, was a big “Meh.”

        The Catholic doctrine for FOREVER hasn’t been chill with capitalism, even if it doesn’t like socialism/communism.

        I just find it funny/annoying that the lefties are over the moon at him slamming Capitalism, when they normally hate the Pope for his positions on gays, abortion, birth control, female ordination, and in general being a roadblock to complete government takeover of services.

        Also, day to day, how the Pope feels about x,y, or z matters very little to Catholics. The Church is VERY compartmentalized. What the Pope says is nice, and provides general leadership, but your parish priest or Mon Seignior (think I’m spelling that right) matters a LOT more.

        It’s a thing I get into with my buddy a lot. “The Pope said X!” “So?” “You disagree with him about that!” “And?” “How can you go to that Church?!” “Because the Pope believes what he does, and I do what my conscious dictates and what I believe. I figure god will sort it out.”

        That view seems tough for his very Protestant view to grasp.

        1. Isn’t the Pope supposed to be infallible?

          1. Only when speaking on certain doctrinal matters in an official capacity. There are a lot of misconceptions regarding Papal infallibility.

            But as a Catholic myself, I’ve never given Papal infallibility much weight, and I haven’t met many others who do either (though it doesn’t come up in conversation very much).

    2. Just so you know, the outfit which criticized Limbaugh, Catholics In Alliance For the Common Good, is Catholic only in the sense that Jews Against Circumcision is Jewish, or Libertarians For the Drug War is libertarian.

      In 2010, the head of this outfit said the Church should be open to abortion, gay sex and female ordination. That’s like a professed libertarian saying that “as a libertarian, I’m voting for Obama.” (I hope that example didn’t hit too close to home).

      1. Eddy, I’m not saying fuck the people who criticized Limbaugh. LET ME BE CLEAR. I’m saying FUCK THE POPE!

        Pope Francis has used his first major written work to attack capitalism as a “new tyranny,” while urging global leaders to fight poverty and inequality. In a document published Tuesday, Pope Francis denounced the ‘idolatory of money’ and “trickle-down” economic policies, as well as consumerism and a financial system which he says rules rather than serves. The Pope urged politicians to guarantee all citizens “dignified work, education and healthcare.”

        Capitalism has done more to lift people out of poverty than religion EVER has. And ANY piece of shit that claims otherwise is a deluded, immoral fuck.

        1. If it wasn’t for the Church , schoolchildren in Warsaw would probably still be memorizing the Communist Manifesto. The Church fought socialism and Communism longer and harder than the Reason Foundation ever did. You want to know why full-on socialism is completely off the table in public policy debates? Thank the Church. Then after a respectful pause, start quarreling over your remaining differences with the Pope.

          1. “You want to know why full-on socialism is completely off the table in public policy debates? Thank the Church”

            Uh, you’ve tossed out some whoppers before, but you may have taken the gold here.
            Yeah, you can cite where some bleever screamed about socialism and then you can cover the So. American robes who are forever ‘spreading the wealth’. Just like the bible, you can find what you wish; it’s all over the place.
            Bleeve if you please, but don’t bother trying to pitch the church as some major benefit to mankind. History has too much to say about that.

            1. “But what will become of man then?, without God and the immortal life? All things are lawful then, and they can do what they like. Didn’t you know, a clever man can do what he likes?” The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky

              1. WoP,
                Thank you for posting worn-out Euro romanticism. Always helpful.

            2. What “some bleever” said about socialism was influential whether you share the beliefs or not. The faithful Catholics were in the trenches leading the workers away from socialism and communism while dilettantish intellectuals were complaining about the Catholic obsession with fighting the commies. The criticism of catholics was that they were fighting socialists too much, not too little.

              1. Eduard van Haalen|11.29.13 @ 10:42PM|#
                …”The faithful Catholics were in the trenches leading the workers away from socialism”…
                While others were leading them the other way, and neither were lacking for wide-eyed sheep to follow them.
                Aren’t you a little old for imaginary friends?

                1. Yes, I should be an atheist like you and your socialist buddies.

                  (Just trying to get a reaction. I know you’re not buddies, just fellow guests at the Skeptics’ Convention).

          2. What part of THIS:

            Pope Francis has used his first major written work to attack capitalism as a “new tyranny,” while urging global leaders to fight poverty and inequality. In a document published Tuesday, Pope Francis denounced the ‘idolatory of money’ and “trickle-down” economic policies, as well as consumerism and a financial system which he says rules rather than serves. The Pope urged politicians to guarantee all citizens “dignified work, education and healthcare.”

            Did you fail to understand? Your boy, is berating the very system (and only system) that has actually helped the poor. You can defend past actions of the church until you are blue in the face, but your POPE IS AN IMMORAL PIECE OF SHIT SOCIALIST! He called capitalism the “new tyranny” for the love of Christ!

            And you’ll fall in line and defend him, because, God!

            Gut check Eddy! Principles or or the supposed messenger of God?

            1. I haven’t defended the statements you’ve quoted, I’m criticizing your limited vision. When it counted,when socialism in every form was beloved of the intellectuals and the basis for many countries’ governing ideology, the Church said NO. Leo XIII predicted the harms of socialism. That was not a popular position. The great and the good, the Educated and Caring people, were for socialism. You’re taking for granted the victory the Church helped win for you.

              Without the Church, instead of debating libertarianism versus social democracy, we’d be debating state ownership of the means of production.

              1. I don’t care what the church has done in the past. THAT is NOT the topic of discussion.

                SAY IT EDDY!

                THE CURRENT POPE IS AN IMMORAL PIECE OF SHIT SOCIALIST!

                1. I CAN’T HEAR YOU! USE A BIGGER FONT!

                    1. In the movie, that was the set-up to one of the best anticommunist lines in cinema history.

                      But while the Popes were bitchslapping pinkos and commies, you were too busy listening to your Beatles albums and eating your deep-dish pizza to care about the future of civilization!

          3. If it wasn’t for the Church , schoolchildren in Warsaw would probably still be memorizing the Communist Manifesto.

            How did the decidedly atheist Czechs manage the Velvet Revolution? East Germany? That shit was inevitable, RC had nothing to do with it. Also, nobody was being forced to memorize the Communist Manifesto in school before the wall fell.

            1. The Bulgarian commies didnt get the news about the Pope’s irrelevance – they tried to kill JPII.

              And its easy now to ahrug and call the fall of communism inevitable, but I read a textbook from the 1980s which talked about the irresponsible fringe demagogues who deluded the voters with dreams of communism’s collapse. NOW the sophisticates shrug and say it was bound to happen, but when it counted they opposed the peoplr who made it happen.

              1. None of which discounts the fact that:

                THE CURRENT POPE IS AN IMMORAL PIECE OF SHIT SOCIALIST!

                1. So…he has repudiated his predecessors and endorsed atheism, class warfare, and the abolition of private property? Show your work.

                  1. Or perhaps this is some definition of socialism with which I am unfamiliar. Which would be odd, since I grew up reading socialist literature and handing out with socialists, but maybe your definition is better than mine.

                    1. hanging out

    3. Of course not. The Pope is cool now, ever since that anti-capitalist proclamation.

  35. Kaptious Kristen|11.29.13 @ 3:31PM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

    Do you think reason is gonna do another webathon? Cause I’m trying to put together some choice phrasing for the ticker at the top of the page (as, I’m bored at work today. The motion-sensor lights keep shutting off).

    I’m leaning towards “This is why Postrel hates us.”

    Reason: do you take Bitcoin yet? (rhetorical)

  36. Missed the earlier thread. Congratulations, Sloopy and Banjos, even if you are dirty Ohio Statists.

    Two cute little girls, the Ginlettes are about to be 6 and 4. After the way they were today, they *might* make it ti 6 and 4, I should say.

  37. I’m just wondering, I know this is kind of off topic, what is this magazine’s position on the Jewish Question?

    1. Don’t get snippy.

    2. Jaspeth|11.29.13 @ 9:53PM|#
      …”what is this magazine’s position on the Jewish Question?”

      I didn’t know the JOOOOZ only had one.

    3. are you looking for a final solution?

      /just asking

    4. What, exactly IS “the Jewish Question??

      1. “Is Deep Dish pizza kosher?”

        1. just going to guess.. if it is, it probably sucks.

          I want calf meat on the pizza topped with the calf’s mother’s milk.

          1. Um…

            Only if the calf was circumcised.

            1. okay, but no foreskins on my pizza. Flat or deepdish, I’m not eating a pizza with foreskins.

      2. Francisco d Anconia|11.29.13 @ 10:04PM|#
        “What, exactly IS “the Jewish Question??”

        That’s my point. Every Jew I know has more than one, just like real people!

  38. Norma Torres, a Democratic state senator in California who took part in a rally outside a Walmart store in her district of Pomona, said that the workers “refuse to live in fear and refuse to accept the scraps which they are being paid. They don’t want a hand-out, they want a decent wage for their hard work.”

    Despite Walmart’s claims, the company has come under mounting pressure over its treatment of its staff. Though the retailer drew a $17bn profit last year, it also paid more than 825,000 workers ? about two-thirds of its total workforce ? less than $25,000 a year. By contrast, the Walton family, which owns more than half of the company, are worth more than $144bn.

    1. Been covered, Nando.
      We know all about commies griping that people make a living when they could be sucking the public tit.

    2. $25K a year? For stocking shelves or running a cash register? I did that for $3.35 an hour. That’s $6700 a year.

      The Waltons are WAY overpaying.

  39. So what are the FDA’s bureaucrats so worried about?

    I see no reason to think they’re worried about anything.

    They’re exercising power *because they can*.

    Because fuck you, that’s why.

    1. what’s this abut Franciso’s bureaucrats? I know he’s a big deal in Montana, but I didn’t know he had tentacles outside of there.

  40. Personally I don’t understand the hate for the anti-Black-Friday thing.

    There is nothing in libertarianism that says that you MUST shop on a particular day, or enjoy shopping, or conspicuously consume anything.

    In fact, most economists hate the Christmas season because it is economically irrational behavior, hugely wasteful. So many gifts are ultimately returned or discarded, given that individuals aren’t making their own decisions. So much money gets spent on “seasonal” packaging, especially in “gift baskets”, where you are basically paying to see summer sausage and cheese, or bath soaps, arranged aesthetically.

    Black Friday isn’t a celebration of capitalism. It’s a celebration of pointless, irrational consumption. Capitalism is about RATIONAL consumption. Spend your money WISELY. Spend it EFFICIENTLY.

    I avoid Black Friday not because I hate capitalism, but because I’m a rational consumer and I don’t see the value in buying a bunch of crap that my family probably doesn’t really want that much, so we can honor a stupid tradition of gift-giving, which is mostly an exercise in social status signalling.

    1. So, how long have you been a Communist?

    2. “Capitalism is about RATIONAL consumption. Spend your money WISELY. Spend it EFFICIENTLY.”

      Could be (I doubt it), but the anti-black-friday crowd are those who supposedly hate people buying shit and enjoying the process.
      You may say that’s irrational, but then I’d have to ask WIH your opinion matters. As an unreconstructed E German ‘intellectual’ had it, she was appalled that the E Germans desired the ‘shiny rubbish’ of W Germany. Fuck her; not her choice.

      1. The anti-black-friday thing does tend to be dominated by lefties. But they are drawing upon a broad revulsion for the experience that it represents to most people. Nobody enjoys dealing with hordes of shoppers in a crowded mall. Nobody likes waiting in lines.

        There’s nothing in libertarian philosophy that says you must enjoy the experience of shopping. Or participate in some sort of collective shopping experience. If anything libertarians should be repelled by the idea that Black Friday shopping is a collective experience that we ought to celebrate and participate in. Fuck that. I’m not spending money on ANYTHING if I don’t need it, and I’m sure as hell not going to do my shopping on the worst possible shopping day of the year. All that collective experience bullshit is for leftists.

        1. “Nobody enjoys dealing with hordes of shoppers in a crowded mall. Nobody likes waiting in lines.”
          Projection, HM. There are people who do exactly that. If there aren’t WIH do you think all those people are there?

          ” Fuck that. I’m not spending money on ANYTHING if I don’t need it,”
          No kidding? You own nothing you don’t “need”?
          Bullshit.

          1. Fair point. What I mean is I’m not going to spend money just to spend money.

            I don’t think there’s anything particularly libertarian or capitalist about shopping purely for the experience of it. Or un-libertarian about NOT shopping for the fun of it. Some people might enjoy shopping, but there’s not moral or aesthetic commandment in libertarianism that you’re supposed to like shopping, because it “celebrates capitalism” or something. It’s completely in keeping with libertarianism to feel that standing in line and pushing through crowds of shoppers is not an efficient or rational use of a Holiday weekend.

            As libertarians we should all be in favor of people making rational economic choices for their own benefit. Not pimping the idea of joining in a Holiday shopping frenzy because it “celebrates consumption” or some wierd bullshit.

            “Celebrate capitalism, by saving your money and staying home.” is no less libertarian.

    3. I have absolutely no problem with anyone who wants to forego the holiday shopping spree. I certainly don’t go all at to the same extent as many. What I have a problem with is the smug, self-righteous, Ivory Tower proselytizing that these people engage in. You want to spend your Black Friday volunteering at the local food bank, bully for you. You want to spend the next six weeks making sure everyone knows about it and how much better you are than everyone else for it, then you’re an insufferable asshole that just reversed whatever Karma you got for doing that. That’s all these people care about.

      1. Add to that, their completely ignorant screeds about social justice and yeah fuck them.

      2. All the more reason to co-opt the whole thing and turn it into being against Black Friday because it’s more libertarian to save your money and spend it wisely.

        Steal the thing and put a libertarian spin on it, I say.

    4. I think it’s because the anti-Black Friday people are so insufferable.

      Me? I don’t shop on Black Friday. But that’s not because some hatred of consumerism. It’s because I have Amazon Prime, and I hate people, especially in crowds.

      But I don’t do it because I’m some holier than thou, consumerism and buying thing and money and corporations are icky type. But the anti-Black Friday crowd seems to have a bigger grievance and axe to grind than “Man, Black Friday is a pain in the ass, just with all the people.” It’s “Capitalism is bad, and corporations are bad, mm-kay, and I’m going to show how much better I am than these stupid, false consciousness sheeple.”

  41. P. brooksing it. This was kind of a reply to hazel earlier.

    Godless Heathen here.

    Early in my Godless Heathen days, before my libertarian days, I started to think that organized religion was necessary to keep people moral.

    No. I was wrong. Organized religions is necessary to give the control freaks something to control, something to do.

    Here’s a church, judge the poeople in it. Make them do things and give up vices.


  42. until I looked at the check which was of $4814, I be certain that…my… mom in-law could actually bringing home money in there spare time on-line.. there aunt started doing this for under 20 months and at present cleared the debts on their appartment and got a top of the range Ford Mustang. why not try this out

    ==============================
    http://www.fb49.com
    ==============================

    1. I’d hit the first one sober.

    2. I think numbers 3, 7, 8, and 10 are trannies.

    3. PRON FOR JOHN

    4. This overweight model is not white, which is also a progressive thing, and The Onion is an incredibly perceptive publication for working that point into this slideshow as well.

  43. A famous actress just had two serious life-changing surgeries based on the test. The tests are NOT conclusive. This is very dangerous, not because of the test but because the people who take action based on the test are total morons. It is possible that that is OK? Is it libertarian to allow a scam like this?

    1. Just going to guess that her tests weren’t just based on the ones we normals pay $100 for.

      1. You are correct, the BRCA tests run about $4.5k, and are very specific. The cost of the test will start coming down dramatically as whole genome testing is currently ~$5k, and falling rapidly, and several of the related patents for the BRCA are sunsetting beginning in 2014.

        Jolie’s test was NOT a 23andme-type test.

        1. And if it was based on her interpretation of the leaves left in her tea cup, it’s nobody’s business by her own.

          1. I disagree with you slightly there. She specifically made her private business public with the way she presented it. The decision is definitely her own, as was the decision to do it discretely or not.

    2. You have domain over your own body. If she did that without getting a second opinion than she’s insane. We can’t create a society based on making it 100% safe for people who are insane. What about sex change operations? That’s completely elective surgery. I don’t see any call to ban those?

      1. In fact I’m guessing that’s now covered in my health insurance.

        1. And her grandfather’s!

    3. “Is it libertarian to allow a scam like this?”

      What “scam”?

    4. Angelina Jolie’s mother died at age 56, after an 8 year battle with ovarian cancer. She had previously survived breast cancer. Jolie’s maternal grandmother died at 45 from breast cancer. No one is claiming that the BRCA test conclusively proved Jolie would get breast cancer, but she had approximately a 90% chance of getting it and a clear family history. Judge her a “moron” if you like, but you aren’t the one living with those odds.

      1. Hmmm, I’m guessing that she got those genes from her mother and grandmother. Thus the DNA result.

    5. This test just gives people information. It’s up to them to choose what to do with it.

      The prudent thing would be to get better (and more expensive) tests, rather than simply lopping off body parts.

      But it’s really up to the person in question and is no one else’s business.

  44. a big part of the control that the elites have on the white american majority is the idea of “white privilege.”
    That white privilege idea that has been placed in white minds via propaganda forced into white students from youth allows the elite to manipulate the majority into allowing cheap foreign labor into the USA, which of course lowers wages and increases profits for the rich. It allows the elite to further factionalize and divide the populace via mass immigration etc, making it harder for the majority to control the government, thus allowing the elite free reign.

    Many and maybe most white americans have some genetic trace of nonwhite DNA which may now or in the future be traceable on this or other similar genetic testing tools.

    If large number of white americans find out they are not all white, that will degrade the “white race guilt” hold the elite have on them. That could lead to chaos! Cats sleeping with dogs! Liberals voting conservative! Oh mah gourd!

  45. Clearly, the owners of 23and me haven’t been … communicating … properly … with the appropriate *cough* Democrat *cough* officials.

  46. Doctors have a great union.

  47. Rock and roll never forgets dawg.

    http://www.Ano-VPN.tk

    1. She packed up her bags and she took off down the road, homie.

  48. Google is paying 75$/hour! Just work for few hours & spend more time with friends and family. On sunday I bought themselves a Alfa Romeo from having made $5637 this month. its the best-job Ive ever had.It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it out http://www.Buzz95.com

  49. until I looked at the check which was of $4814, I be certain that…my… mom in-law could actually bringing home money in there spare time on-line.. there aunt started doing this for under 20 months and at present cleared the debts on their appartment and got a top of the range Ford Mustang. why not try this out

    ==============================
    http://www.JOBS83.com
    ==============================

  50. I can see the Gypsy Lady down the street and have my fortune read, w/o Government Almighty blessings, but can’t get do the same to get my DNA read? 23andMe needs to send our saliva samples to China for “Feng Shui analysis” of totally non-medical fortune-telling about our future, and THEN maybe it will be permitted! As is, DNA analysis is entirely too rational? Throw in some irrational rites, rituals, songs, and dances, about the Holy DNA Molecular Spiritual Spirality maybe, and THEN it shall be permitted in the Sacred Name of Religious Freedom. We need some sort of Government Almighty agency to finely calibrate just HOW MUCH irrationality do we have to have, before we deserve Religious Freedom, though; the picture is entirely too murky as is?

    1. See http://www.churchofSQRLS.com for details, but I have written a fairly good amount about Guv-Mint Almighty requiring your religion to be IRRATIONAL before it is valid. Here is an out-take, use it as a search string at the site if you want more?
      Then the other new Federal Agency would be the Ministry of Silly Religions (MSR). Now before y’all (believers) start spamming me with endless angry emails and postings, let me say, don’t pre-judge where I am going with this thing here. I am ***NOT*** saying that all, or even most, religions are “silly”. Many-many of them have done WAY significant things over the ages, to teach us to “Love our neighbors”, and there is NOTHING AT ALL silly about that, that is a WAY important thing, there! AND, many-many individuals HAVE done important, beneficial, usually self-sacrificing things, over the years, in the name of Religion or God. In balance, I will add that religious organizations have ALSO, obviously, done some horrible things over the ages as well. See http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Hor…..1573927783 . And we all know some church-going SOBs who show little love for their neighbors. SOME church-goers DO dispense some very good and noble things, though, and, since GAWD never likes to get all up-staged, GAWD usually bends over backwards, in the Name of All That is Holy (Religious Freedom). We Scienfoloogists just want our fair share of religious freedom, that’s all.

  51. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I dowww.bar29.?om

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.