Veterans Health Care Compromise Reached, Rockets Launched From Russia, 'The Sarah Palin Channel' Lives: A.M. Links

|

  • U.S. Air Force/Flickr

    House and Senate lawmakers have agreed on a compromise plan to fix the problem-plagued veterans health care program, which they will unveil at a press conference Monday. 

  • The Pentagon says satellite images show rockets were fired from Russia into eastern Ukraine between July 21-26. Meanwhile, the UN is considering whether the downing of Malaysia Airlines jet MH17—thought to be done by pro-Russian rebels—may constitute a war crime. Time to start cleaning out the old bomb shelter yet?
  • If real problems are too scary right now, you could always join hyper-partisans on both sides of American politics in feeding the "absurd impreachment feedback loop."
  • And speaking of impeachment… Sarah Palin has launched her own subscription-based online network, The Sarah Palin Channel. For $9.95 per month you can talk with Palin "about the issues that the mainstream media won't talk about." LOL. 
  • Not to be outdone by neighboring states, Tennessee advocates are pushing a constitutional amendment that would create a spate of new abortion restrictions. 
  • Married couples with equal education levels are less likely to get divorced than those in which women are less educated than their husbands.
  • Does President Obama have the authority to stop tax inversion

NEXT: Jacob Sullum on Three Places Where Marijuana Could Be Legalized This Year

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. House and Senate lawmakers have agreed on a compromise plan to fix the problem-plagued veterans health care program…

    Six weeks isn’t enough time to line up pork recipients.

    1. Hello.

  2. So I’ve been gone a week – did I miss anything?

    1. Hugh Akston is turned on by African plane crashes.

      1. Haha what?

        1. He went into such graphic detail, I think the editors ended up nuking the entire thread. It was really disturbing, even for me. I doubt he’ll ever show his face around here again, except under a fake handle.

          I suggest cutting off all non-board communication with the sicko.

          1. It was really disturbing, even for me

            After reading that I’m feeling faint.

          2. I am happy I missed that thread.

    2. Scrolling down, it looks like you missed a lot of links that were already posted. :-p

  3. …Tennessee advocates are pushing a constitutional amendment that would create a spate of new abortion restrictions.

    I say we turn this into an abortion thread. WHO’S WITH ME?

    1. Deep dish is not PIZZA!!11!!

      1. Circumcision!

        1. Artisanal mayonnaise.

          1. Deep dish is uncircumsized pizza.

    2. Punkin Chunkin Tractor Pullz

      1. The “much greater than” sign got chopped. HTMfaiL

        1. I don’t see why you couldn’t combine the two and have cocktailz while you’re at it.

          1. Can we keep Squirrlz off the guest list?

            1. Solution: chuck squirrels contained in pumpkin forged craft.

              Squirrel flingerz!

              1. btw, is that Knoebel’s?

                1. Yes. When I last rode satellite there were pine trees full of squirrels growing close enough for the pods to brush against them, so I dubbed it the squirrel flinger.

                  1. Nice. I love that place.

                    1. Old-skool fun, and cheap. The kids rate it after Cedar Point and Hershey Park.

    3. Seeing as how I have a cocktail party coming up I will state that the war on women is being fought in every uterus. We need deepen our focus on the expanding fronts of this war that takes place in every single part of the female anatomy.

      1. I’m all for fighting on that battleground!

        do I need to bring anything special?

  4. Suspicious Blood-red Water Inundates River in Wenzhou

    An inner city waterway in the eastern city of Wenzhou was found to have been inundated by an influx of blood-red water this morning.

    Local residents say the river was running normally at 4am, but it started to redden at around 6am, and in no time turned as crimson as blood.

    One villager who has lived his whole life by the river side said this has never happened before.

    The villager recalled that there wasn’t a chemical plant along the upper stream.

    Did Warty release the blood of his enemies?

    1. It’s a Chinese knock-off of The Shining, presumably called The Shine Happy or something

      1. Much red, very shine.

    2. They better hope it doesn’t progress past locusts and darkness. The effects of the death of the firstborn would be really devastating given their one child policy.

  5. Meanwhile, the UN is considering whether the downing of Malaysia Airlines jet MH17?thought to be done by pro-Russian rebels?may constitute a war crime.

    More like war negligence?

    1. If the US had done it, the USG and the suck-up media would have called it collateral damage. The USG would express regret regarding the loss of life, but neither admit wrongdoing or accept responsibility. Senior officials at the time of the event would say something like, “I will never apologize for the United States of America, ever. I don’t care what the facts are.”

      That’s pretty much what happened with the Vincennes shootdown of an Iran Air jetliner filled with civilians. The quote is from GHWB. It will take a few generations for the full truth to be revealed, and the apologies to be made.

      1. The United States government did not formally apologize to Iran. In 1996, the United States and Iran reached a settlement at the International Court of Justice which included the statement “…the United States recognized the aerial incident of 3 July 1988 as a terrible human tragedy and expressed deep regret over the loss of lives caused by the incident…”. As part of the settlement, the United States did not admit legal liability but agreed to pay on an ex gratia basis US$61.8 million, amounting to $213,103.45 per passenger, in compensation to the families of the Iranian victims.

  6. Married couples with equal education levels are less likely to get divorced

    And more likely to be paid differently!

    1. And to have different levels of abortion!

      1. And circumcision.

  7. …Sarah Palin has launched her own subscription-based online network, The Sarah Palin Channel.

    The Lightning Rod Network.

    1. Is that a lightning rod in your pants or are you feeling pole-a-rise-ing?

    2. Weigel already has the proper coax attachment readily available in his ass.

    3. So we just lost shriek to 24/7 trolling there, yes?

  8. Ex-member of the Westboro Baptist Church just did an AMA, which is how I discovered this excellent site:

    http://www.godhatestheworld.com/

    1. that site must be getting the friendly DDOS.

    2. God hates Tuvalu because it’s populated with racist Polynesians? What? What does that even mean?

  9. Man Leaves Parting Shot at Toronto Maple Leafs in His Obituary
    Terry Siebert of Hamilton, Ontario died last Monday at the age of 58. His family published an obituary in the Hamilton Spectator. It described at length his loving family and friends and how he impacted their lives. Then, in the final line, Siebert snarked at the Maple Leafs, which is a professional hockey team in Toronto:

    It was Terry’s last wish that his pallbearers be the Toronto Maple Leafs so they could let him down one last time….

    1. Toronto is so lame it couldn’t come up with something more original than Cleveland…

    2. It should be the Maple Leaves.

      1. If your last name were Wolf, would your family be collectively known as the Wolves or the Wolfs?

        1. Depends if wolf is a verb or a noun.

  10. The Average American Family Is Poorer Than It Was 10 Years Ago

    The net worth of the typical American household in 2003 was $87,992, adjusting for inflation. Ten years later, it was just $56,335, a decline of 36 percent, according to a study by the Russell Sage Foundation.

    But even as the average American household’s wealth declined, the net worth of wealthy households increased substantially. The average wealth of the American household in the 95th percentile was $1,192,639 in 2003, and $1,364,834 ten years later, an increase of 14 percent.

    1. The average American family is clearly racist.

    2. How much of that is the collapse in house prices?

      1. Guessing most of it.

      2. More than 100% of the change.

      3. Probably all, if not more, of it. Meanwhile, the average American family enjoys 50 inch flatscreens, iPhones, and laptop computers that are multiple times more powerful than a decade ago. Much wealthier people living in cheaper houses. I consider that to be progress.

        1. “American family enjoys 50 inch flatscreens, iPhones, and laptop computers that are multiple times more powerful”

          And multiple time cheaper as well.

        2. Meanwhile, the average American family enjoys 50 inch flatscreens, iPhones, and laptop computers that are multiple times more powerful than a decade ago. Much wealthier people living in cheaper houses.

          Yeah, and all that shit was bought on credit, too, the same as the house. Show me how many of these consumer goods were bought with cash and then we’ll get a real measure of wealth.

          1. I don’t know. But I’d maintain that a person who buys $1,000 of today’s stuff on credit vs $1,000 of 10 years ago stuff on credit is still “wealthier”, in that they have and are able to enjoy better stuff.

            1. But I’d maintain that a person who buys $1,000 of today’s stuff on credit vs $1,000 of 10 years ago stuff on credit is still “wealthier”

              You really have no idea how inflation works, do you?

    3. Value of house. When you put all your net worth in your house and it goes negative….

      Even Stanley (forgetting first name, Millionaire Next Door guy) screwed that up. He has changed his calculations to exclude net worth of primary residence.

    4. Did they adjust for the population and age and employment status of the average American household? Just the unemployment figures might account for half that change.

      You gotta be careful about those “household” figures since it’s not necessarily the same people you’re looking at across time. As the Baby Boomers retire, their kids hit peak earning years, and their grandkids move out on their own you’re going to get demographic changes that may explain a big chunk of the economic changes.

  11. The ObamaCare/IRS Nexus: The supposedly independent agency harassed the administration’s political opponents and saved its health-care law.
    ..Emails viewed by congressional investigators nonetheless showed that Treasury and the IRS remained worried they were breaking the law. An email exchange between Treasury employees in the spring of 2011 expressed concern that they had no statutory authority to deem a federally run exchange the equivalent of a state-run exchange….

    1. Fake. SKANDULZ.

  12. 6th Circuit Court: Ex-Judge Wade McCree’s conduct ‘reprehensible’ but immune from lawsuit
    Disgraced former Wayne County Circuit Judge Wade McCree, who had an affair with a woman while presiding over her child custody case, got some good news from a federal appeals court this week: He can’t be sued by the child’s father.

    That’s what the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded in a 24-page decision Monday, stating that while McCree’s actions were “often reprehensible,” he is immune from lawsuits under the long-held doctrine of judicial immunity….

    The courts, meanwhile, have long held that judges can’t be sued by litigants. Sklar said he hopes the U.S. Supreme Court reconsiders….

    …Einhorn also applauded the 6th Circuit for upholding the judicial immunity doctrine on McCree’s behalf. …

    1. Judges invented a doctrine that judges can’t be sued. How convenient.

      1. Is that basically a version of “not it!” Writ large? Just because they say it doesn’t mean that it can stand. Of course, it might take a legislative fix. Which means it will never fucking happen.

      2. Yep, because government functionaries must be free of vexatious litigation. You peasants on the other hand…

    2. This is why we need the Censor.

      1. Or head pinned up on the rostra.

  13. Eleanor Holmes Norton says ‘you don’t have a right to know’ what’s going on in government
    …”You don’t have a right to know everything in a separation-of-powers government, my friend. That is the difference between a parliamentary government and a separation-of-powers government,” Norton said during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing.

    It was, to put mildly, a significant departure from the more traditional liberal stance that openness and transparency are must to prevent abuses of power by government officials. Instead the leading advocate for statehood for the District of Columbia literally argued that even the congressional committee charged with oversight shouldn’t be asking questions in the first place.

    She made the comments while protesting the committee’s Republican majority for voting to ignore a claim by the White House that David Simas, director of it’s Office of Political Strategy and Outreach, was immune to a congressional subpoena to testify. Republicans believe the office is being used a political campaign operation, a violation of federal election law….

    1. Yeah, you’re just paying for it

    2. I love how they call it a “fishing expedition”. You know what another word for “fishing expedition” is? Oversight. It is Congress’ job to conduct fishing expeditions.

      1. If they haven’t done anything wrong – they’ve got nothing to worry about.
        — NSA Fellatio Squad

    3. Norton went on to say, “Sure, a government for the people, by the people, blah, blah, blah.”

  14. Heck of a job there, ThinkProgress:

    CORRECTED: Bachmann And Migrant Children

    Update: The news site KCTV7 News is a parody. Rep. Bachmann (R-MN) never made the statement. We sincerely regret the error.

    Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has an unusual solution to the crisis of unaccompanied migrant children coming across America’s southern border: put them in camps and put them to work….

    1. They are so easy to troll. Progs are profoundly ignorant and dogmatic. This makes their reactions very predictable.

    2. Time to cancel my subscription to her newsletter.

  15. Eugene Volokh destroys the dogmatic open borders position.

    The bottom line is that for all the good that immigration can do (and I’m an immigrant to the U.S., who is very glad that America let me in, and who generally supports immigration), unregulated immigration can dramatically change the nature of the target society. It makes a lot of sense for those who live there to think hard about how those changes can be managed, and in some situations to restrict the flow of immigrants ? who, after all, will soon be entitled to affect their new countrymen’s rights and lives, through the vote if not through force.

    I sometimes pose for my liberal friends a stylized thought experiment. Say that they live in a country of 3 million people (the size of New Zealand) where 55% of the citizens are pro-choice and 45% are pro-life (1.65 million vs. 1.35 million). Now the country is facing an influx of 1 million devoutly Catholic immigrants, who are 90% pro-life. If these immigrants are let in and become citizens, the balance will flip to 2.25 million pro-life to 1.75 million pro-choice (56% to 44% pro-choice); and what my friends might see as their fundamental human right to abortion may well vanish, perfectly peacefully and democratically.

    http://www.volokh.com/2013/02/…..al-aliens/

    1. That’s what unaccountable judges are for. If elections don’t matter, who cares who gets to vote?

    2. How does that destroy the deontological position on open borders?

      It might work if you are a utilitarian, but you know my views on them.

      1. It has nothing to do with utilitarianism. It is about the right of people to have sovereignty and control over their own governments. Ultimately, the open borders position stands for the proposition that natives are obligated to submit themselves to the rule of any group larger than them who wishes to come and take over. The entire position is a giant exercise in Orwellian Language, claiming to speak for freedom but in reality allowing outside groups to stick a boot on the faces of those who already live in an area. Thanks to Reason’s character limit, I couldn’t include Volokh’s conclusion, which is

        “Letting in immigrants means letting in your future rulers.”

        See for example Native Americans allowing in Europeans and Palestinians allowing in European Jews.

        1. Well, I’m not sure that Native Americans had any choice…

          1. Neither did the Arabs who lived in the Levant.

        2. And the Irish right?

          “about the right of people to have sovereignty and control over their own governments. ”

          See, where you say ‘right of the people’ you mean a collective group’s rights and I mean the rights of individuals.

          1. Just because we chose to let people in at one time says nothing about our right to chose not to in different times.

            There are few dumber arguments for open borders than “but we let other people in”. That is nothing but question begging. We let some in before, maybe we shouldn’t now. So what?

            1. It undercuts your claims of doom if we let groups in though

              1. NO it doesn’t. It just says that sometimes it isn’t. That says little or nothing about what it means in the future.

        3. The entire position is a giant exercise in Orwellian Language, claiming to speak for freedom but in reality allowing outside groups to stick a boot on the faces of those who already live in an area.

          Well, by that logic, we ought to seal the border between, say, Texas and New Mexico as well. And we also ought to prevent people from having children.

          1. Although sealing the borders so Californians cant get out does have some appeal.

            And I know a lot of New Hamsters would seal the border with Mass.

          2. NO not at all. The states and Texas and New Mexico have chosen to join together. If the country chooses to join with Mexico, it could do that. The point is, it is up to the people in each sovereignty.

            Your point borders on the retarded Jordan. The logic is not “we must either close all borders or open them all”. The logic is “it is up to the people in a sovereignty how open the border is.”

            Since you are generally not retarded, I assume you are being dishonest and just trolling by making such a stupid point.

            1. Your point borders on the retarded Jordan.

              John’s new argument style: running his posts through a random language on Google translate and back again before posting.

              1. Nvm, it turns out that I’m the retard. Fucking Christ.

            2. “The states and Texas and New Mexico have chosen to join together”

              Like they could decide to leave

              1. They chose to join. The point is that the US has a right to control its borders. If they don’t, then they have no sovereignty.

            3. “if the country chooses to join with Mexico”

              tbh, this is my thought of what would happen in an open borders situation. It sounds like anarchy utopia, but I think the authoritarians would certainly see it as an opportunity to expand their control beyond the national borders.

            4. The states and Texas and New Mexico have chosen to join together.

              Just a nitpick, John. But the last time they chose, Texas chose to not be a part of the United States. And they were forced, at gunpoint, to rejoin the union. So I don’t think voluntarily is a completely accurate descriptor here.

              1. meh it wasn’t gunpoint really. The Republic of Texas was in serious debt and had inflation through the roof. Leadership was getting nervous about another Mexican incursion, so they joined the larger US.

                The offer to join the US was conditional, and IMO Texas still maintains the right to leave the Union. Won’t happen, but if any state could be self-supporting today, it’s the Lone Star State

                1. You forgot the part that involves the War Of Northern Aggression.

        4. There is no right to any particular form of government.

          The only sovereignty any has any right to is individual sovereignty. The fact that supporting one right may, hypothetically, lead to some political change that affects another right is entirely beside the point.

          Morality decrees that people are free to move. Period. End of story.

          2. You can have open borders without granting citizenship to the new arrivals. We dont even have to give citizenship to their children born here. That can change if we desire.

          1. Yes, Rob you are a trans nationalist and reject the concept of the nation state and of collective sovereignty and the right of self determination. Both Volkh and I are not.

            Why is your position any better than ours? All you are doing is making a bunch of assertions of what you like.

            And you cannot have open borders without citizenship over the long hall. The people who come will not accept being second class forever and eventually when there are enough of them they will just take over.

            1. ‘Both Volkh and I’

              Did you mean to write Volk?

              1. Yes, because national sovereignty means fascism. Thank you for giving us a rare example of Godwin’s law in action. You see it called out a lot but rarely do you see it really happen. It was a creative way for you to admit you have lost the argument.

            2. John is right!!!

              Look at the disaster caused by the influx of illegal immigrants from Oklohama and Massachusetts to Virginia!!!!!

              If we opened the borders of Virginia, they might move there in droves and vote democrat!!!!

              1. Tarran,

                You are not that stupid. Or is it that you let your ideology make you stupid. Which part of “the states joined in a union” do you not understand? I am not saying that the US must close its borders. I am saying that it can. Come on Tarran, you are smarter than that. You are not Bo for God’s sake.

                1. John, I am really realy bored with the collectivist argument you retards keep trotting out that can’t tell the differeence between armed invasion and people migrating peaceably.

                  The collectivist argument is so retarded that it makes my head hurt.

                  Here are my thoughts on the subject.

                  if you can come up with a rebuttal that doesn’t include handwaving where a subset of the members of a village magically express the will of every citizen of the village but actually presents an argument as to why 535 people would get to decide who I rent to, I wil be all … er.. eyes.

                  But for the record, I think your position is utterly retarded. And your pretense that your opponents have no case makes me wonder if you are as stupid as the persona presented by Tony’s sockpuppet.

                  1. Tarran,

                    then you are an anarchist and are too stupid to understand it. All law requires the government exerting control over the individual at some level. If you reject that entirely, then you reject all government and law. That is called being an anarchist.

                    I don’t know what to tell you other than I am not an anarchist or a trans-nationalist. But I at least I am smart enough to know that, unlike you. You are a normally smart person who has allowed your ideology to make you stupid.

                  2. So when you’re acting in opposition to people who are collectivists you have to pretend that they’re not collectivists and act as if they have the same individualist motivations as you?

                    And you keep spouting variations of this–

                    if you can come up with a rebuttal that doesn’t include handwaving where a subset of the members of a village magically express the will of every citizen of the village but actually presents an argument as to why 535 people would get to decide who I rent to, I wil be all … er.. eyes.

                    John is starting from the society that exists around us, one that accepts various types of majority based decision making. You keep demanding that he, or others who engage in this conversation, describe a society in which this is not the case as a prerequisite for making their point.

                    We live in a society where what is done usually involves some majority based decision making. You live in that society as well. Since you haven’t left, or seceded one can take it that you prefer this, however infinitessimally, more than the various alternatives on offer around the world.

                    You also don’t seem to like the libertopian approach–of a nation without public property. A nation where someone who wanted to rent from you would have to pay right of passage or face penalties for trespass. The border of that nation would be far more secure than this–as it would all be in private hands.

              2. Actually, that’s exactly what’s happened in Virginia. Statist scum from the Northeast moved down here as government (and the DC metro area) exploded in size, so now I have Terry motherfucking McAwful as a governor.

                So, yeah, I’m all for closing our state borders (and kicking Fairfax County the fuck out to Maryland).

            3. And you cannot have open borders without citizenship over the long hall. The people who come will not accept being second class forever and eventually when there are enough of them they will just take over.

              This is how progressives see the world: the ends justify the means. Nevermind that we’re discussing human beings and imaginary lines that other human begins have decided exist, which people may or not be “allowed” to cross depending on the exact geography of their, or their parent’s, birth.

              People are people, period. And it’s wrong to deny them the freedom to move, or work, or associate with others, purely because they happened to be born in a certain place. If doing the right thing creates some political problems that need to be dealt with, then you deal with them. But once you go down the path of “we want/want to prevent outcome x, therefore we are justified in denying individuals their rights as people”, you’re a progressive, pure and simple.

              1. It has nothing to do with ends justifying the means Thom. It is just understanding reality. People who claim “we just won’t let them vote” are not making a realistic argument.

                In the end, you are saying “if Open Borders end up doing untold harm to your society and making your life worse, go fuck yourself because other people’s freedom to move and associate is more important than your right to form sovereign groups”. That is really what it comes down to. You deny the ability of people to form groups and assert sovereignty. Again, good for you, but you need to be honest with yourself and admit that. You also might want to think how, if people can’t form a government to control the borders, have any right to form a government of any sort. Ultimately, the Libertarian transnationalist position is internally inconsistent. If the individual always trumps the collective, then you can’t have any laws, not just border laws.

                1. You deny the ability of people to form groups and assert sovereignty.

                  Either you are mouth-breathingly stupid or you are arguing in bad faith.

                  This argument suffers from a critical flaw: it blurs the distinction between invasion, where someone trespasses on the property of another, and that of legitimate sales of land or rental of land. If my neighbor chooses to sell his land to a person from Mexico, it is a voluntary trade between two individuals and not a unilateral expropriation of property. A squatter who seizes the house can be dealt with as a trespasser. Where the criminal comes from ? Canada, West Virginia, or from the immediate neighborhood ? is absolutely irrelevant.

                  If you want to enter into a contract with your neighbors to not rent or sell to any wetbacks or okies, have at it. We won’t stop you. We may mock you; we may say ‘meh’; Nick Gillepsie might write snarky articles about you; but nobody would try to physically prevent you from doing it.

                  There’s your fucking ‘sovereignty’.

                  Shall we try a non-retard argument now? one that doesn’t involve hand-waving?

                  1. If you want to enter into a contract with your neighbors to not rent or sell to any wetbacks or okies, have at it. We won’t stop you. We may mock you; we may say ‘meh’; Nick Gillepsie might write snarky articles about you; but nobody would try to physically prevent you from doing it.

                    Indeed, the reasoning of Shelley v. Kraemer looms large. No one should try to physically prevent you, and you shouldn’t expect us to posse up to enforce your covenant either.

                  2. If you want to enter into a contract with your neighbors to not rent or sell to any wetbacks or okies, have at it. We won’t stop you. We may mock you; we may say ‘meh’; Nick Gillepsie might write snarky articles about you; but nobody would try to physically prevent you from doing it.

                    There’s your fucking ‘sovereignty’.

                    You just described exactly that you fucking half wit. If my neighbors can do it, why can’t an entire state or country do it? The principle is the same.

                    Amazing how ideology can make smart people stupid.

                2. As much as I dig the “we can just ignore morality when it’s convenient” argument, I just can’t buy into it. Sorry.

              2. The ‘imaginary line’ around my property might not be real to you, but cross it without my permission and you will discover how real it is to me.

                Nearly every animal on this planet uses these imaginary lines to delineate their territory. Just because you subscribe to the ideology that property is theft does not mean that anyone else does. In fact, natural law appears to let everyone know that such an ideology is insane.

                No one has the right to a job, the right to free movement, or the right to associate with others. Each one of these things you’re calling a ‘right’ depends of the action of others. The action of employing your person, the act of allowing your person to freely cross others property, and the act of associating with your person.

                No rights are being denied anyone.

                1. Your imaginary line is not quite as magical as the imaginary lines used to divvy up the land into “nations”. Not really the same thing as all. Far from believing that “property is theft”, I believe that people should be able to own property wherever they want and can afford, regardless of which side of some line they were born on.

          2. What robc said.

            I’d add that the rights of US citizens are also curtailed by immigration restrictions.

            1. US citizen rights are curtailed by a lot of things. If the government can’t trump the individual on the border, how can it do so in any context? Your position is either that there should be no government or that there should be government but there is something “different” about borders versus any other act of sovereignty.

              1. Or that government should be guided and limited by a principle, say combatting aggression and nothing more

              2. If the government can’t trump the individual on the border, how can it do so in any context?

                How about only in pursuance of protecting people’s rights or enacting justice?

    3. That post drew several rebuttals from fellow conspirator Ilya Somin:

      http://www.volokh.com/2013/02/…..migration/

      Also:

      http://m.washingtonpost.com/ne…..eople-too/

      “But in considering those costs and benefits, we should also take account of the benefits of migration to the immigrants themselves, and the severe infringements on liberty imposed by immigration restrictions. Immigrants are people too and debates over immigration should consider their welfare and freedom, not just those of native-born citizens.”

      1. Sure they are. They are people who already have sovereignty where they live. Why are people in other areas required to surrender their sovereignty to them? Your freedom to come here also comes with the freedom to outvote me and ultimately determine the direction of the country.

        If we didn’t have a democracy, this would be less of an issue. But since we do, the natives have a legitimate concern over immigrants out voting them and changing the nature of their country over their objection.

        Somin and Volokh are talking past each other. Volokh recognizes the concept of national sovereignty and the right of groups to act in their collective best interest. Somin doesn’t. To Somin there is only the individual right to go wherever they want. If exercising that right infringes on the people who already live there’s sovereignty and changes the nature of the place and its government, well that is just too fucking bad for the people who live there because in Somin’s view they only have the individual right to leave or stay but do not in any way have any sovereign rights to control the society or government around them. Somin is a trans-nationalist and Volokh is not.

        1. “Volokh recognizes the concept of national sovereignty and the right of groups to act in their collective best interest. Somin doesn’t. To Somin there is only the individual right to go wherever they want. ”

          Individual rights as trumping ‘the rights of groups to act in their collective best interest.’

          That’s kind of the definition of libertarianism, John.

          1. No it is not. If it were, Libertarian would me anarchist, since any law by its definition is the state trumping the individual.

            That is a weak point even for you. Try harder Bo.

            1. Collective interests trump individual liberty. Sounds like Tony

              1. All laws represent the collective trumping the individual. If you don’t believe in that to some degree, you are an anarchist.

                1. No John, we allow govenment to secure ones rights against force and fraud, which no individual has a right to, and which immigration doesn’t involve

                  1. Bo, that is so simple minded as to be almost beyond response. Collectively, we decide what “rights” we have and what constitutes “fraud” and what is fair trade and what is “murder” and what is self defense. That collective judgement is subjected on me, whether I agree with it or not. That is called government. Again, you are making an anarchist argument.

                    1. Rights are what the collective determines. My gosh, you are Tony!

                    2. Just so you know John, rights are natural not determined by the collectivre, and rights are negative only, any other sense of them is incoherent. And negative rights do not include preventing other people’s non aggressive movement and association.

                    3. Bo, you are so stupid, there is no point in continuing this conversation. What those rights mean and how the law works is determined collectively and imposed upon individuals even if they don’t agree with it. If there were some natural set of “natural rights” whose interpretation was without question, we wouldn’t have political arguments.

                      I will give you credit though, you smugly trying to lecture me on this is one of the funniest thing I have seen in a while.

                    4. This whole diatribe is why people call you Red Tony, John.

                    5. rights are natural not determined by the collective

                      And yet so many deny the right, so evident in nature, to keep and hold territory.

                      There is no demonstrable right to a freedom of movement–in fact, in the animal kingdom migration is dangerous and often fatal–as countless nature shows can attest.

                      But this weird anti-property concept persists.

                    6. john is a statist at heart and always has been

                  2. When Walt Kowalski says, “Get off my lawn”, he’s asserting valid property rights.

                    One of the primary reasons governments are instituted among men is to secure these rights.

                    The US government is doing precisely the opposite with regard to landowners on the border. It is facilitating the trespassers against the interests of its citizens.

                    The fact is that virtually every one of these kids will cause the US government to violate the property rights of US taxpayers even more than it already does. The accommodation, supervision, feeding, education, and medical care of immigrants aren’t free, and the vast majority won’t pay for it themselves. The USG will pay, and pass the bill along with the customary upcharges to US taxpayers.

                    1. Most libertarians praise Bastiat’s insight that “the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen”.

                      Why can’t the Reasonoid libertarians foresee that the effect of unlimited immigration is a diminution of the property rights of US citizen taxpayers?

                    2. Why can’t the Reasonoid libertarians foresee that the effect of unlimited immigration is a diminution of the property rights of US citizen taxpayers?

                      Because you have no data on the “unseen” here, whereas Bastiat did. you cannot demonstrate causation.

                    3. Why can’t the Reasonoid libertarians foresee that the effect of unlimited immigration is a diminution of the property rights of US citizen taxpayers?

                      Gramsci.

            2. This seriously does sound like Tony. Rights are whatever a particular government says they are, as decided through “the collective.”

              Not that I think such an argument is totally wrong, but the similarity is funny.

    4. In your example, you forgot the part where the million Catholics were allowed in not through a legal process, and not by the body (Congress) that has authority over immigration policy. Instead they are to be admitted by an Unconstitutional Executive Order by a Pro-life President.

      1. Where do see that Congress is granted authority to restrict immigration? I see something about the power to make Naturalization laws, but nothing on immigration.

        1. You and a few other crackpots see it that way. Every court who has ever looked at the issue and every Congress over the last 225 years sees it differently.

          That said, I fully expect Reason to decide the rule of law and dictator by President is suddenly no big deal when it means getting their immigration pony.

          1. So Congress had been acting outside any express Constititional authority in this area for a long time, and you’re only bothered by recent unauthorized action in this area?

            1. Yes. Law is made and interpreted by practice. Did you sleep through law school?

              1. So you were with Obama in Noel Canning? Because that was his argument

    5. While I think the immigration quotas should be MUCH higher, I agree that open borders is a na?ve argument. I truly think that the dissolving of sovereignty would only lead to larger, regional (or world) government.

      While theory provides one answer, I think the reality of the world would provide a stark contrast to the utopian open borders fantasy world.

      1. Part of the problem with the “immigrants are going to change the polity” argument is the assumption that immigrants are flocking to America because they really don’t like America and want to change it. I would suggest that adopting stricter standards on how people can democratically decide to restrict the liberty of others might better preserve individual liberty and prevent immigrants from easily adopting laws antithetical to the ideals of America. If you have a fear of immigrants moving here and then voting for laws that take away your freedoms, maybe it’s because it’s too damn easy to pass laws that take away freedoms.

        1. I think the assumption is that a substantial fraction of immigrants flock here to get free shit and, once they join the free-shit brigade, the US will be well and truly fucked up.

    6. I sometimes pose for my liberal friends a stylized thought experiment.

      Wake me up when we’re faced with an influx of 150 million Mexicans.

    7. I’m pretty damn utilitarian, but I stick by one deontological rule: a presumption of liberty. If you want to stop a person from doing something, I think you need a damn fine justification.

      “Sorry, but some people who look like you may, 20 years from now, vote in a way that I don’t like; therefore, you cannot cross this border,” doesn’t cut it for me.

      1. The anticipated change in future demography and voting patterns is reasonable, but it does not constitute a moral argument, and the presumption of liberty is a fine first principle.

        However, the presumption of liberty does not confer a right to trespass.

        I thought libertarians believed that property rights were inherent to liberty. A free country is conceptually the property of its citizens. Perhaps that is an imperfect analogy, but the citizens of a free country have the right to determine the rules related to the access and conduct of foreigners within its borders. It is their country. Non-citizens certainly have no rightful claim to determine a free country’s rules of their access and just conduct within its borders.

  16. feeding the “absurd impreachment feedback loop.”

    Obama don’t preach, we’re in trouble deep?

    1. But are we keeping the baby?

    2. +1 Madonna

  17. Survey Reveals Unhappy Person Profile: She’s 42, Single, and Working
    If you were thrown into a random group of white-collar workers and offered a million dollars if you could select the happiest person in that group, what kind of person would you pick? Would you select a man or a woman? Married or single? Children or no children?

    Well, according to a new survey released this month, your odds of winning would be increased if you skipped over the 40-something, single, female doctor or lawyer and opted for the middle-aged, married senior manager with a child at home and a wife who works part-time. In its Office Pulse survey, Captivate Network, a media solutions company, says its uncovered “profiles of the happiest and unhappiest workers.” And women don’t fare so well….

    1. In other words, Amanda Marcotte.

      1. There’s a shocker.

    1. Why must it be like that?

  18. …you could always join hyper-partisans on both sides of American politics in feeding the “absurd impreachment feedback loop.”

    Who knew the idea of a President Biden could engender such strong feelings.

  19. The Labor Party
    Why Ed Miliband’s lot are so besotted with Uncle Sam

    This enthusiasm runs through Mr Miliband’s party. Labour MPs’ shelves bend under Robert Caro’s biographies of Lyndon Johnson. Party members quote mantras from Mr Obama’s presidential runs. When Labour hired the consulting services of David Axelrod, the chief strategist on those campaigns, one party blog described him as a “deity”.

    So dazzled is Labour that it has outsourced much of its planning for next year’s general election to America. Mr Axelrod is based in Chicago. Matthew McGregor, another veteran of the Obama campaigns who is running Labour’s digital operation, lives in Brooklyn. Arnie Graf, its grassroots guru, is in Baltimore.

    1. Wow, they worship LBJ and Obama. I have no words for how sad that is.

  20. If real problems are too scary right now, you could always join hyper-partisans on both sides of American politics in feeding the “absurd impreachment feedback loop.”

    Unfortunately, managerial incompetence is not universally accepted as an impeachable offense. That case could be easily made.

  21. The ‘kinky jockey’ and the ‘sexy spider’: Cosmopolitan magazine features its first ever article on lesbian sex positions

    Guide features 28 positions for female lovers
    Features moves such as the ‘kinky jockey’ and ‘sexy spider’
    Is first lesbian sex guide published by Cosmopolitan since it became a women’s magazine in the 1960s

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem…..tions.html

    Four of Cosmo’s ‘mind blowing’ sex positions for girl-on-girl love making

    Good cop, naughty cop: This position is essentially the same as ‘doggy style’, but involving either the use of a strap-on sex toy, or manual stimulation while the lower partner has their hands handcuffed behind their back.

    The passionate pole dancer: One partner sits on a chair, with the other partner supported in their lap, facing away from them. Raising a knee helps keep things stable as well as providing stimulation for their clitoris.

    The Kinky Jockey: One partner kneels on all four and the other sits on them, using their tailbone as clitoral stimulation while yanking their hair like reigns.

    Defying gravity: One partner sits normal in a chair while the other kneels on her, facing out, and drops down to the floor, using their hands to balance. This provides an ideal position for oral sex.

    1. Wish the Fail would learn how to spell “reins”

    2. Wow, so they actually published something new in Cosmo.

    3. Please tell me the original article says, “sits normally”.

  22. Loose bull elk ‘stressed’ by attempted selfies caught in Garden City

    The Idaho Department of Fish and Game says someone called police to report seeing an elk in a vacant lot at 42nd and Adams Street.

    The responding officer called Fish and Game. A conservation officer found the elk, which appeared to be stressed. Fish and Game says people were getting too close and trying to take “selfies” with the animal.

    Because of the stress, the elk ran off through the neighborhood including Veteran’s Parkway.

    1. Evelle: Gale? Um, Junior just had a – an accident.
      Gale: What’s that, pardner?
      Evelle: He had hisself a little ol’ accident.
      Gale: What do you mean? He looks okay.
      Evelle: No. You see, moving though we are, he just went and had hisself a little ol’ rest stop.
      Gale: [sniffs the air] Well, that’s natural.

  23. Is this the worst college diploma typo ever? Berkeley graduate discovered he had a degree in ‘cummunications’ years after he hung it up on his wall and didn’t notice

    Alex Harris’s wife spotted error while packing up during a house move
    First vowel in the word ‘communications’ was a ‘U’ rather than an ‘O’
    Mr Harris: ‘I looked at keyboard and “O” and “U” aren’t next to each other’
    University of California counts Nobel Peace Prize winners among alumni

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..-typo.html

    1. Cummunications, specialising in erotica

  24. Would you take a climate change CRUISE? Ship will tour melting Arctic so tourists can see polar bears in their disappearing habitat

    Luxurious month-long grand tour will give tourists the chance to see endangered Arctic animals and threatened icy landscape
    Trip is set to appeal to lovers of the great outdoors but there is no mention of the cruise’s environmental impact in the brochure
    ‘Once-in-a-lifetime expeditionary voyage’ is being offered by Crystal Cruises from almost ?14,000 (?24,000)
    Ship will embark from the Gulf of Alaska on August 16, 2016
    Company claims its cruise ship will be the first to traverse the Northwest Passage – a sea route that’s becoming more accessible due to melting ice
    Holiday includes expeditions, kayaking trips and lectures by experts

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci…..mpact.html

    1. They’re going to get trapped in pack ice just like that ship in the Antarctic a few months back.

      1. If the polar bear habitat is disappearing why is the population booming?

        It’s so stupid!

        The polar bear is a brown bear that’s adapted to hunt on the snow. They do fucking fine in warm weather; their pray are seagoing mammals like sea lions. And as long as there’s a beach, they’ll have food!

        1. The population is booming because polar bears don’t eat ice.

    2. What’s the carbon footprint of that ship’s giant diesel engines?

      1. I was just thinking the same thing.

      2. Don’t forget about all the private jets that ferry the cruise’s passengers to and from the ports of embarkation and debarkation.

  25. Teen-stalking psychopath gets a paid vacation.

    http://www.timesrecordnews.com…..n_33505907

    Wait till you see his picture.

    1. Louis CK is doing a police procedural now?

      1. Maybe a cross between Louis CK and Grossburger from “Stir Crazy”.

    2. LOL

      “It’s physically possible for you to avoid getting this ticket.”

    3. Sloop I was thinking of you a couple weeks ago when I was on jury duty.

      One of the cops who testified was absolutely retarded. When you walk up to the witness stand you see a big TV that they use to show pictures of various pieces of evidence.

      The cop not once, but twice looked over the wrong shoulder when asked to identify something or other. The second time he did it, there was some snickering from the jury box (not all of it was me either) and he turned beet red.

      And before you think this is some trivial mistake that anyone could make, let me point out that no one else (including a bunch of moronic gang bangers) made that mistake even once.

  26. House and Senate lawmakers have agreed on a compromise plan to fix the problem-plagued veterans health care program, which they will unveil at a press conference Monday.

    I predict that the “plan” will essentially entail studying how unelected bureaucrats TBD might be tasked to develop new regulations.

  27. Yes, This Is An Equity Bubble

    Make no mistake ? this is an equity bubble, and a highly advanced one. On the most historically reliable measures, it is easily beyond 1972 and 1987, beyond 1929 and 2007, and is now within about 15% of the 2000 extreme. The main difference between the current episode and that of 2000 is that the 2000 bubble was strikingly obvious in technology, whereas the present one is diffused across all sectors in a way that makes valuations for most stocks actually worse than in 2000. The median price/revenue ratio of S&P 500 components is already far above the 2000 level, and the average across S&P 500 components is nearly the same as in 2000. The extent of this bubble is also partially obscured by record high profit margins that make P/E ratios on single-year measures seem less extreme (though the forward operating P/E of the S&P 500 is already beyond its 2007 peak even without accounting for margins).

    1. So if I am sure there’s a bubble what can be done about it? Is the market just waiting for a event to lead a precipitous fall? Who could predict that? Why am I writing like Napolitano?

      1. Nothing. Yes. Nobody. I don’t know.

      2. I’m seriously wondering how I can profit off of the impending implosion of student loan debt, because that one just seems obvious.

        1. There must be something you can short or buy puts on.

          Also, have a room with a kitchenette to rent…

          1. Yeah, I need to talk to someone who understands what those words mean.

          2. It’s a toughie. Most of the loans are federal and the cost of not going to college is still seen as worse than taking on debt. Some of the more expensive private, but lower-tier schools are feeling the pinch in terms of enrollment. However, the beast of rising college tuition has a lot of staying power because it is a supremely distorted market, like health care.

    2. Now you’ve done it. Weigel’s going to come in and shit all over the thread.

  28. Bella Thorne shows off her lighter locks as she cosies up to boyfriend Tristan Klier at the Young Hollywood Awards

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..wards.html
    Are those lips real? One of the comments suggests they’ve been injected. They don’t look natural to me. Oh, and youth is still wasted on the young.

    1. Is it good or bad that I have no idea of who either of those two people are?

      1. For you? Good. For them? Any press is good press.

  29. The Sarah Palin Channel

    She’s getting into softcore porn?

    1. Weigel certainly hopes so.

    2. Nailin’ Palin 2: Back for the Bucks

    3. Why someone hasn’t made a Sarah Palin as dominatrix of sissub Barrack Obama porn movie is beyond me.

      1. There is this thing called the Internet that was made entirely for the creation and dissemination of every kind of pornography imaginable…

          1. What are Rules 1-33?

            1. Apparently there are 100

              1. It would be awesome if we placed an arbitrary limit on the number of rules that a government could publish and enforce. You want to make a new law to provide health care or limit use of private property? OK, fine, which other rule will you repeal to make room in the code for your proposal?

                1. We could start with just allowing government only XX% of GDP to spend each year. That would be just as awesome.

                2. The United States Code is limited to 100 8.5x11in pages. All text must be formatted in 12-pt font, with double spaced lines and 1-in margins. The Code must be self contained and cannot reference any outside documents to expand upon the laws as written. The font must be Comic Sans.

                  1. Rule of Law instead of Rule of Laws. I like it.

                  2. Use of Wingdings encouraged.

                    1. Better yet, require it be written entirely in pictograms for the illiterate.

                    2. Pictograms are dangerous. Too much of the current code could just be replaced with a middle finger, and nothing would change.

      2. THAT’S RACIST!!!111!!!

    4. I’d pay to see her if it was hardcore porn.

      1. Perhaps for Canadian content, Justin Trudeau can be the cissub?

  30. Charlie Crist flies to enviro press conference — on jet of developer fined for pollution

    Democrat Charlie Crist flew to an environmental press event Thursday on the private jet of a developer fined for pollution.

    Almost as soon Crist stepped off the 2005 Cessna 560XL, Gov. Rick Scott’s campaign had photographed its tail number and traced its ownership to developer James Finch, whose company Phoenix Construction was fined at least twice for violating environmental rules (more here, here and here).

    Scott’s campaign quickly informed reporters awaiting Crist at his press conference concerning climate change.

    1. I love this kind of thing.

      1. Yep. This is exactly the reason why the movement to DO SOMETHING about AWG gains no traction. All the movement’s high priests are hypocrites, and everyone else wants someone else to do the sacrificing.

    2. I’m glad that unlike in 2010, we have an actual libertarian choice in the gubenatorial election here. Given that we have Skeletor, a crook who’s never met a crony capitalist deal he didn’t like, versus Charlie Crist, the man who will change his views to agree with whatever you say if he thinks it’ll win him a vote. I hate this state sometimes.

      1. The last election I looked into the 3rd party candidate and it was some dude with an 8th grade education that looked like a child molester.

        1. In 2010 I wrote in Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck for Governor and Lt. Governor. It wasn’t really a protest vote. I figured they could do better than either Scott or Sink.

  31. Remember the hilarious Keystone Kops story where LAPD’s finest mistook a skinny little white guy in a black Honda for a large black guy in a Nissan and pumped 39 bullets,into his,truck,while on the way to,the beach? Well the taxpayers have finally been put,on the hook to,the tune of $1.8 million for the pleasure of knowing that the officers can all but try to execute someone they couldn’t even identify.

    The cops got a paid vacation out of it and are back on duty, by the way.

    1. Battle Royale was a documentary, not a feature film

    2. With their loose white socks and short skirts? yeah… I’m not commenting, just looking.

    3. Kawaii desu ne.

  32. I’d like to get a report from Reason on just how many people click on those ridiculous ads. Do we, as readers here, really live down to the abysmal standard implied by the content of those insipid attempts at clickbaiting?

    1. what ads? I see no ads /NoScript user

      1. Meh. I use something similar at home but my android browser doesn’t support ad filtering.

        1. I have only cached images set to load, and Flash turned off. I get the Newsmax shit, but not most ads.

          1. They only advertise things I have already bought. It is kind of a poor showing if you ask me.

      2. I had to disable noscript on some travel sites recently as they (orbitz, kayak) couldn’t query all the providers. Only noticed because results were different than on my kindle. Very annoying.

        1. NoScript can be a hassle… but most of the time if means a better internet experience.

          1. Whatever browser blockers I use won’t let me go to HuffPo so that’s a plus.

  33. How Halbig Truthers Have Spun Obamacare Architect’s Comments

    Gruber went to The New Republic to plead his case that he’d merely had a “speak-o,” which he defined as being like a typo but in verbal form.

    And *I* define an “uh-o” as being like a typo but in fart form.

    1. Ha. Halbig Truthers. They’re desperate.

    2. That can’t be right – he died at the end of Die Hard. Or should that be Die Hard-o.

    3. Of course Bachus said the exact same thing. Was that a “speakO” too?

  34. Northern Virginia: ‘Ground Zero’ for Kissing Bug Disease

    The bite itself is painless, and many people never show any signs of the disease. A third of those with Chagas, however, develop heart disease or megacolon, and untreated, they die

    Crap. *Another* thing to worry about!

    1. “Megacolon?”

      Jeebus.

      1. Nice band name, though.

    2. Megacolon? I’ll be in my bunk.

      1. YOU GET BACK TO WRITING RIGHT NOW, YOUNG MAN!

        1. My erotic memoirs are going quite well, thank you. I’m almost up to my junior year of high school.

    3. Napalm the fuck out of Fairfax County. It’s the only way to save the rest of us!

    4. How about we bring back DDT?

  35. Probably covered, but any thoughts on the new Mad Max trailer?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46ir8Xd5QyE

    meh to CGI.

    1. I heard the director was specifically trying to avoid CGI. IMO Mad Max films should be done with live stunts only. It seems contradictory to rely on high tech to tell a postapocalyptic story.

    2. Joviality is a game of children – Bubba Zanetti

    3. There’s some pretty good looking actresses in it, apparently. But I never saw the original so I’m not really interested.

      1. You never saw Road Warrior (aka Mad Max 2) or the previous movie? Man…

        1. I was born two years after Road Warrior came out.

          1. What a shame you were born too late to have seen great movies such as Star Wars, The Godfather, Ben Hur or Casablanca. I mean, since you can’t watch a movie that was made before you were born and all.

            /snark

            1. If it happened before you were born, did it really happen?

            2. And then there are the weirdos who watch very few movies made after they were born….

              1. My teenaged kids probably fall into that category. But I blame Hollywood more than myself. If they had put,out many decent movies in the last 16 years compared to the preceding 25, that wouldn’t be the case.

    4. Will the mute kid be back?

      MM always reminded me of Smash Up Derby.

    5. Probably covered, but any thoughts on the new Mad Max trailer?

      I think Tom Hardy is one of the best actors working today, and that he’s perfect for the part of Max. And I like that George Miller (the director of the original films) will be directing.

  36. Has there ever been a time since the release of the classic film that these words could be applied to more situations in the world all at once?

      1. Obama’s speechwriter is a paleontologist?

      2. I thought it was global warming that cased the asteroid impact.

      3. I thought it was global warming that cased the asteroid impact.

      1. That makes no sense in this.context.

  37. John, I saw that you recommended Black Lamb and Grey Falcon a while back. You are always mentioned interesting-sounding books, but I had met an exchange student from that region, and decided to check that one out. Just wanted to say thanks, it is an amazing book, which I probably never would had heard of otherwise.

    1. Here is my classmate, unfortunately I was unable to woo said strumpet.

      1. That is the drop dead killer look for me. I’ll be in my bunk.

    2. You might be interested in Sugarfree’s literary stylings.

    3. You are welcome. It is an amazing book. She is totally pro Serb, but it doesn’t matter.

  38. Ok, this is OT Even for the Morning Links. But has anybody seen that Skyn Condoms ad? It shows on Hulu all the time when I’m trying to watch a cooking show. Anyway, it’s this chick and the message is “I love sex but hate condoms, but Skyn condoms are great.” Anyway, the point of this screed is that the woman, IMO, looks like a fucking horse. I mean she’s butt-ass ugly and is actually a boner-killer. In fact, I wanted to buy a 70″ 3D TV this Christmas but am afraid to now because when they point the camera directly at her nose, I’d be afraid that whoever was watching it would have a heart attack.

    Am I wrong here? Are my standards just,out of line with where they should be for a commercial that is literally trying to sell sex? Help me out here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPfCtJ_bXP4

    1. It’s terrifying at the 25 second mark.

      1. “Skyn Condoms: Just say ‘neigh'”

      2. some men – myself not included – like a large dominant nose.

        1. Do you prefer Jimmy Durante, or Karl Malden? 😉

    2. I see nothing to be afraid of there, but I like a good nose on a gal.

      1. I move that we refer,to anything that big as a “snout” in the name of accuracy.

      2. I’m with db. Stefi Graf has a great shnoz.

      3. I’m with db. She’s not a beauty, but very far from uggo.

        There’s nothing wrong with a girl who doesn’t have a flat, featureless face. YMMV.

    3. Ugly is overstating it. This is ugly

      1. PSA: If that’s a nipple and not a zit, NSFW

        1. I’m pretty,fucking sure that’s NSFW regardless of what that….thing…is that’s on her chest.

          What we needed was a trigger warning there, IFH.

          1. Can any trigger warning be comprehensive enough for that photo?

      2. Nice site, ifh.

        “You say you like duck lips?”

        Seriously, those poor gals.

        My sister had a terribly-homely friend who was routinely innocently called “Sir”. However, she really did have a great personality and has been happily married for years.

    4. You’re overreacting. Who buys more condoms? Men or women? Anyway this ad seems targeted at women and definitely focuses too much on the face in an unflattering way. But most men wouldn’t kick her out of bed.

    5. I guess I can understand why her face might not appeal to certain people, but I think you’re waaaay overstating it.

      1. Waaaaaaaaay overstating it?
        Or neeeeeeiiiiiiiiiigh overstating it?

        1. You’re nuts.

          I would ride her hard and return her wet.

          After the place a wreath of flowers around her neck for winning the Preakness, of course.

          1. I think your spellchecker messed up your “Prickness” joke.

    6. You expect people to click on that link?

    7. She has an odd look but I’d totally hit it anyway.

      Her features are too big for her face – kinda like Anne Hathaway.

    8. He nose is a bit large, but her hair is just awful. It looks like a horribly abused Farrah Fawcett styling head.

    9. I wouldn’t say she’s a horse face but she’s definitely not cover model material.

      TIWTANFL

  39. Sorry, sloopy — The ad explicitly warns you “This changes *everything*”!

  40. OK, look, as the linked article makes clear, the proposed abortion amendment in Tennessee would not *create* new abortion restrictions, it would provide that such restrictions as the Tennessee legislature enacts may not be struck down by state courts under the guise of enforcing the Tennessee Constitution.

    I bet you didn’t know that the Volunteer State has a pro-abortion clause in its constitution! Most people didn’t know this before 2000, when the state high court said so. In practice this means that abortion regulations which would be fully acceptable to the federal courts under their interpretation of the Roe decision, could be struck down by state courts.

    Among the regulations which the state will hopefully pass if the amendment passes (subject of course to the veto of the federal courts) will be informed consent laws, waiting periods, and safety regulations for abortion facilities.

    Here is how the amendment would read if it passes:

    “Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion. The people retain the right through their elected state representatives and state senators to enact, amend, or repeal statutes regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother.”

    1. The context is that Tennessee seems to be a go-to destination for people from neighborning states who just can’t be bothered to comply with waiting-period requirements or informed consent.

      1. That’s some delicious butt-hurt, Eddie. How do you feel about waiting periods and mandatory training as a prerequisite to firearms purchases?

        1. You’re right, waiting periods for abortion are a clear violation of the Abortion Clause in the Constitution.

  41. Hey has anybody heard from Groovus recently? Just worried if he’s still in a war zone

    1. It’s been a *long* time. 8-(

      1. On the positive side, they probably need doctors right now. That’s the best spin I could think of.

    2. Did he ever really exist as presented? Seems if someone wanted to make an exit from an online community, “moving to the Ukraine” might be a good way to go. I’m probably off base here and I hope he’s OK.

      1. Seems if someone wanted to make an exit from an online community, “moving to the Ukraine” might be a good way to go.

        As opposed to merely ceasing to post?

        1. Some may feel a need to explain themselves to people they care about in some way, some may simply have a flair for the dramatic.

      2. Well I know you exist, nobody pretends to live in Pittsburgh.

        1. I’m going to get a soda now.

      3. A few others and I talked with him off-board and he was who he said he was. He’s not been answering anyone’s email as far as I know.

        1. I heard from him a couple of times via email after he left here; then he stopped responding. Apparently he had met a lady doc in UKR and they were hitting it off.

          He certainly seemed to be who he said he was, but I never got any hard confirmation (ie corporate email address, real name, etc) of his identity. Not saying he wasn’t legit, just expressing healthy skepticism.

    3. Nope,,and we talked pretty regularly until about a year ago. I’m kind of worried about him too.

      I’ll shoot him another email. He’s always been curious about Baby Reason’s belly and the surgeon here told us on Friday that he wants to operate in September. If that doesn’t draw a response, I don’t know what will.

      1. He’s always been curious about Baby Reason’s belly

        Well who hasn’t been? That really is a trump card. Say hi to him from me, please

  42. Not to be outdone by neighboring states, Tennessee advocates are pushing a constitutional amendment that would create a spate of new abortion restrictions.

    Oh noes! They’re going the bring the verbiage of their Constitution in line with the federal constitution regarding abortion and will treat clinics like actual health care facilities. The humanity!

    1. Of all the topics that cause stupid drama in Reason threads, I hate abortion threads the most. What’s the point?

      1. Ask ENB. She’s the one that totally misrepresented what is going on.

      2. See above – if it’s important enough to cover, it’s important enough to cover correctly.

        Who are the radicals in this situation – the people who would keep Tennessee abortion laws under federal court supervision, or those who think the federal courts don’t protect abortion *enough* and that abortion rights need a backstop in the form of the state judicial system. How much judicial supervision does the “right to abortion” *need*?

      3. They’re hilarious?

    2. will treat clinics like actual health care facilities

      Wow, that’s some vague, possibly disingenuous BS right there. So, should your dentist have to have admitting privileges? Should the neighborhood urgent care clinic have to meet all the codes for an actual hospital?

      You people are trying to whittle away at abortion rights, and everybody knows it. And the anti-gun people are using the same techniques against us now; I hold you fetus fanciers responsible for this state of affairs.

      1. I hold you fetus fanciers responsible for this state of affairs.

        Actually, it’s the anti-abortion movement that is copying the gun grabbers, who have had success applying “reasonable restrictions” even though bearing arms is specifically called out in the constitution as a right that is to be held free from infringement.

      2. “Fetus fanciers” is that the new “breeders” slur used in the circles you run, or did you just think that one up during a lazy Sunday watching a House Hunters International marathon?

        1. Sounds like a horrid group of cannibals?

  43. I’ll shoot him another email.

    Tell Groovus I said howdy.

  44. This weekend my FB was awash with links to stories about cops rescuing cute homeless puppies and kittens. Looks like a PR initiative. Anyone else see that?

    The good news is that they seem aware of the bad publicity they’ve been (deservedly getting). The bad news is that this may actually distract the public from the puppies who are still being needlessly killed by these thugs.

    1. Anyone else see that?

      No. I have seen some lefties bitching about abusive cops recently though.

  45. Your tax dollars at work, security clearance holder edition.

    Pentagon security clearance holders owe $730 million in taxes.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.